MUTHUCHAMY Vs. NEELAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, made in I.A.No.285 of 2017, in O.S.No.132 of 2012, in and by which, the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 401 days, in filing the connected petition, to set aside the exparte decree, was dismissed.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the first defendant before the trial Court. Against whom, the respondents /plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration, to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant as null and void. Wherein, the trial Court passed the exparte decree on 20/1/2014. Against the said exparte decree, when the revision petitioner / first defendant filed an application to set aside the exparte decree, there was a delay of 401 days. Hence, he filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the above delay, on the ground that he was suffering from Jaundice and was aged about 73 years. He would also further contend that the Jaundice made him to become weak.

(3.) The respondents / plaintiffs have strongly objected this application and contended that the allegation put forth by the petitioner is far from truth, and that though the revision petitioner pleads his aging and Jaundice for condonation of delay, in the meantime, he has participated in the criminal proceedings lodged against the second respondent. Therefore, the very reason assigned by the petitioner is not a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay. Hence, prayed to dismiss this application.