PERIASAMY Vs. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 20.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.3440 of 2010 in O.S.No.317 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

(2.) THE suit O.S.No.317 of 2004 filed on promissory note by the respondent for recovery of money was decreed ex parte on 14.3.2005. According to the revision petitioner on receipt of notice in R.E.P.No.271 of 2006 for auction came to know about the ex parte decree and thereafter he filed the I.A.No.3440 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1813 days (i.e.) about 5 years. THE said application came to be resisted by the respondent/ plaintiff.

(3.) THE plea that the revision petitioner was suffering from paralysis and therefore, he was unable to prosecute the matter in time does not appear to be bona fide. In this case, the respondent/plaintiff has obtained decree in the year 2005 and the matter is pending in execution stage. THE prejudice that will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff will also be considered in a case of undue delay by the revision petitioner/defendant.