NANCY JEEVADHAS Vs. A. RAJENDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit filed this revision petition against the order dated 30.10.2008 made in I.A.No.1012 of 2008 in O.S.No.97 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thambaram.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as revision petitioner and the defendants in the suit are referred as respondents hereafter.

(3.) IN the affidavit, the first respondent has stated that in the original suit, after receiving summon, the first respondent entered appearance through counsel. At the time of filing the written statement, the first respondent approached the revision petitioner for an amicable settlement and in the month of August 2007, the revision petitioner demanded money to withdraw the suit. It is also stated in the affidavit that the first respondent went to Bangalore to do another project work and due to his ill -health and also heavy work in business, he was unable to come to Chennai and contact his counsel to give instruction for filing the written statement and therefore, the exparte decree was passed. It is further stated that the first respondent received notice in E.P.No.95 of 2007 in the month of January 2008 and when the first respondent approached the revision petitioner about the notice, the revision petitioner has given an assurance to withdraw the execution proceeding. Therefore, the first respondent waited for withdrawal of the execution proceeding, till the end of April 2008. Since the revision petitioner did not withdraw the execution proceeding, the respondent filed a counter in the execution petition and filed the I.A.No.1012 / 2008 to condone the delay of 282 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 07.08.2007.