MEIYAPPAN Vs. CHETAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam in I.A.No. 584 of 2013 in O.S.No.133 of 2006.

(2.) The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.133 of 2006, which was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed ex-parte and the revision petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree along with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2231 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the lower Court, the petitioner has stated that he is aged about 72 years and that he was in continuous treatment for Jaundice. The petitioner has not given relevant dates during which he was under the treatment. The ex-parte decree was passed on 08.06.2007 and the petition was filed in August, 2013 to set aside the ex-parte decree with the delay of more than six years. It is un- acceptable that the petitioner was taking treatment for Jaundice for more than six and odd years. Except illness no other reason is stated. This cannot be accepted. Since the delay has not been properly explained and the delay is inordinate, the Court has to necessarily see whether the petitioner can be given any indulgence having regard to any peculiar circumstances in this case.

(3.) The suit in this case was filed on 06.10.2006 and the relief prayed for by the petitioner is recovery of possession. No doubt, it is true that the parties are relatives. The specific case of the plaintiff was that all the joint properties were divided by metes and bounds and the suit property was alloted to the plaintiff. Stating that the defendant was permitted to reside in the portion of the property till he put-up his own residential construction and move out to his own place, it is contended by respondent that the revision petitioner was in permissive possession. It is also admitted that the revision petitioner did not file any written statement. The written statement was filed only in the year 2013 along with the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.