(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order dtd. 12/9/2019 made in I.A.No.85 of 2010 in O.S.No.112 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner's husband, viz., K.Devarajan is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.112 of 1998, which was filed to pass a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the C,D,E and F portion vacant site mentioned in the schedule and to grant permanent injunction against the respondent / defendant and his men restraining them from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said vacant site and further, a decree of declaration that the impugned sale deed dtd. 22/1/1996 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is forged, concocted, void ab initio, invalid and unenforceable and not binding upon the plaintiff and as consequence grant a permanent injunction against the defendant. The said was decreed exparte on 23/12/2003. The respondent / defendant has filed I.A.No.85 of 2010 to condone the delay of 2155 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said I.A.was allowed on payment of Rs.2,000.00 to the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner / plaintiff has preferred the present Revision.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff would submit that the court below failed to see that the respondent has not examined the advocate's clerk, who alleged to have wrongly noted the order and the respondent has not explained each day of delay with sufficient cause. Further, the application for receiving the copy of the order was not filed and it is only a hearsay that the suit was dismissed for default and this piece of evidence is not admissible. That apart, there is no oral or corroborative evidence to support the respondent's illness, hence pleaded to set aside the order passed by the court below.