B NAVANEETHAMMAL Vs. SULEKA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P.No.989 of 1999 for eviction. Notice in the R.C.O.P. was served on the petitioner by way of affixture. On 15.9.1999, the Trial court has passed the ex parte decree against the petitioner herein.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she has come to know about the ex parte order after receipt of notice in E.P.No.283 of 2000 and within seven days thereafter, she has filed M.P.No.199 of 2001 to condone the delay of 397 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The respondent herein has filed counter opposing the said application. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application by its order dated 5.10.2001 stating that the ex parte decree was passed on 3.9.1999, but, the petition was filed after the lapse of 510 days; that it was not proved by the petitioner that she was not served with the summon; that the application was filed to protract the proceedings. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the application to condone the delay was filed within seven days from the date of knowledge, however the petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay from the date of passing of the ex parte decree by way of abundant caution, indeed, the said application was filed within 30 days; that the Trial court failed to note that no summon was served on the petitioner, but, it was shown that service was completed by affixture, in fact no such affixture was effected as defined in the Rules 1974 and prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.