K SUDARSAN Vs. D KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.318 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam is the revision petitioner. THE respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of the pro-note executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. THE suit was posted for trial and the revision petitioner did not come forward to cross examine, despite several adjournments were given by the Court below and therefore, the Court below decreed the suit as prayed for on 24.06.2009.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.398 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 73 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree and that application was dismissed. As against the same, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below, after taking into consideration the earlier conduct of the revision petitioner and also the circumstances, which led to the passing of the exparte decree, rightly dismissed the application and he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and others, [(2011) 9 SCC 678] in support of his condition.