S SANKARAPANDIAN Vs. S PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the fair and executable order passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.14295 of 2006 dated 20.01.2010 in dismissing the petition seeking for condonation of delay of 1072 days in filing the restoration application in I.A.No.14296 of 2006.

(2.) THE revision petitioner herein was the petitioner and the respondent was the respondent before the lower Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that the petitioner was very much aware of the exparte decree passed against him and the petitioner/defendant was not in possession of the suit property but he conveniently and unlawfully trespassed in the suit property. He would further submit that the petitioner was not diligent while filing the application to set aside the exparte decree and to pursue the application in I.A.No.10676 of 2003, an application to condone the delay of 96 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. He would also submit that the said application was not promptly prosecuted by the petitioner, but let it to be dismissed. He would further submit that the actual delay caused in filing the application to condone the delay in filing the restoration of I.A.No.10676 of 2003, was 1099 days but the petitioner has wrongly mentioned as 1072 days which itself shows that the petitioner was not sincere in defending the case. He would further submit that the lower Court has correctly come to the conclusion that no document was produced and the reason was not established for the purpose of condoning the long delay of almost 3 years. He would further submit that the petitioner who was well aware of the exparte decree passed should have diligently prosecuted the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, but he had wantonly left it for dismissal in order to prolong the case as long as possible since he trespassed into the suit property. He would further submit that when the petitioner had knowledge about the exparte decree passed against him, the application filed by him to set aside the exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing such an application, should have been pursued carefully by the petitioner. He would submit that the further laches found on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned in the absence of proof of reasons put forth by the petitioner. He would draw the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (5) CTC 48 (Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam) and yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (2) CLT 509 (Padma and Others v. Standard Literature Company (P) Ltd.,) in support of his argument. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner was always negligent and lethargic in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree or the application filed to restore the application for condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree (i.e.) I.A.No.10676 of 2003. Knowing fully well that the exparte decree passed against him would be executed against him, he has come forward with such applications without any proof for the reasons of delay putforth in the petition for condonation of delay only for the purpose of prolonging the case. He would further submit in his argument that the reasons put forth by the petitioner are not acceptable for condonation of such a long delay of 1099 days which has also been wrongly mentioned as 1072 days. He would therefore, request the Court to dismiss the revision.