SIVASAMY Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Despite printing the name of the respondent, there is no response from him.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners / defendants 1 to 3, would echo the heart-burns of his clients to the effect that the I.A.No.836 of 2011 filed by the petitioners herein to get the delay of 149 days condoned in filing the I.A. to get set aside ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, was dismissed. The reason for the delay was jaundice of the first petitioner who claimed to have constructed the case on his behalf and on behalf of his son also. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the suit itself is one for specific performance and the defendants were set ex-parte as they could not cross-examine P.W.1 by making their appearance before the Court.

(3.) A bare perusal of the aforesaid decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the delay could be condoned subject to payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the plaintiff refuses to receive the cost, it shall be deposited in the Lower Court, whereupon the Lower Court shall number the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and process it as per law.