GOPIMANJUNATH Vs. A S PRAKASH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decretal order dated 23.2.2011 passed in I.A.No.200 of 2010 in O.S.No.123 of 2004 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the third defendant in the suit. THE respondent is the plaintiff. THE respondent filed the suit O.S.No.123 of 2004 for enforcement of the sale agreement dated 15.4.2002 executed by the first defendant who is none other than the father of the revision petitioner/third defendant. Suit summons were served on the first defendant and he received the suit summons for himself and on behalf of the other defendants as well. It is also stated in the judgment of the trial Court that in the absence of the revision petitioner/third defendant, the suit summons were served on the father. THE fourth defendant was a minor and an application was filed and the court guardian was appointed. THE suit was contested by the fourth defendant as the father remained ex parte and the defendants 2 and 3 also remained ex parte. THE suit was decreed on 24.2.2006.

(3.) MR.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was asked to state as to the date when the revision petitioner came to be aware of the decree. He states that at the time of execution proceedings the revision petitioner came to know of the decree as against the revision petitioner and thereafter he filed the application. This contention is not stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition I.A.No.200 of 2010 to condone the delay of 1431 days. In such view of the matter, the inordinate and unexplained delay of 1431 days cannot be casually accepted.