B. RAJENDRAN Vs. D. BAKTHAVACHALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar in I.A.Nos.665 of 2015 and 437 of 2016 in O.S.No.115 of 2012 dtd. 30/6/2016 respectively, in and by which, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the two Interlocutory Applications filed by the respondent/defendant, viz.,

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) As far as this case is concerned, previously, the respondent/defendant was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2012 vide judgement and decree dtd. 10/1/2013 and thereafter, on 27/2/2014, he was again set ex-parte, by the trial Court, for the second time. On 10/1/2013, when the trial Court had passed an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.115 of 2012 for the first time, the respondent/defendant had filed an application for setting aside the said ex-parte decree, by stating that he was suffering from severe fever and so, he could not appear before the Court on 10/1/2013 and thereafter, on 27/2/2014, when the trial Court has passed an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.115 of 2012 for the second time, the respondent/defendant has filedthe aforesaid two Interlocutory Applications, namely, I.A.No.665 of 2015, for condoning the delay of 356 days for filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C and I.A.No.437 of 2016, for setting aside the ex-parte decree dtd. 27/2/2014. There is an inordinate delay of 356 days in filing the condone delay petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent/defendant has to explain as to why he did not file the above petition, within a limitation period of 30 days. But, he has stated only one reason for the delay that he was suffering from jaundice on 27/2/2014, the date on which the ex-parte decree was passed in O.S.No.115 of 2012, apart from that, he has not mentioned anything about how long he was suffering from jaundice, the period of treatment and when he got recovered from jaundice. The learned Subordinate Judge ought to have seen whether the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.665 of 2015 and 437 of 2016 by the respondent/defendant are substantiated by relevant materials and facts.