RAJALINGAM AND ORS. Vs. MAARIYAAYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 30.09.2003 and made in I.A. No. 760 of 2002 in O.S. No. 192 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Manapparai, dismissing the application to condone the delay of 186 days to set aside the ex -parte.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the trial court erred in dismissing the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner, even though convincing reasons were stated therein and that the trial court has failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, who have clearly stated the illness of the first petitioner. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the said suit in O.S. No. 192 of 2000 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Manapparai. When the said suit was posted on 15.02.2002 for filing written statement, the petitioners/defendants have not appeared and that the trial Court has passed the ex -parte decree against them and that since the first petitioner, who has been followed the case, has affected with Jaundice and continuously taking treatment, he could not filed the petition to set aside the ex -parte decree in time. Therefore, they had filed an application in I.A. No. 760 of 2002 in O.S. No. 192 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif, Manapparai to condone the delay of 186 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex -parte decree passed on 15.02.2002. The trial court, without considering the above reasons, has simply dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial court has to be set aside and the civil revision petition has to be allowed.