MATHAYAMMAL Vs. MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is preferred against the rejection of petition filed to condone the delay of 595 days in preferring the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money due on promissory note said to have been executed by Palanisamy, the father of Petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 and the husband of petitioner No.1/defendant No.1. Since the petitioners remained absent on 22.10.2003, an ex-parte decree was passed. It is alleged that after coming to know about the ex-parte decree on 20.04.2005, the petitioners filed the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree along with the condone delay petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels for both parties and having examined the materials on record, I feel, interest of justice would be served by directing condonation of delay and also by setting aside the ex-parte decree, subject to certain terms and conditions. It is of course true that the question raised before this Court is to condone the delay. However, since the reasons for condonation of delay are same as the reasons for setting aside the ex-parte decree, no useful purpose would be served by merely condoning the delay and by remitting the matter relating to Order IX Rule 13 CPC for fresh disposal, as adopting such a course is likely to delay the ultimate disposal of the suit.