JAYAKUMAR Vs. M BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of the XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai made in I. A. No. 18506 of 2006 to condone the delay of 1002 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 19. 12. 2003 is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) AN application was filed to condone the delay of 1002 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed on 19. 12. 2003. It was the suit for damages. Written statement was filed. The matter was posted for trial on 19. 12. 2003. Since the defendant did not appear, he was set exparte. PW1 was examined and exparte decree was passed. Thereafter, an application was filed to set aside the exparte decree. While doing so, a delay of 1002 days was occasioned. In order to condone the said delay, I. A. No. 18506 of 2006 was filed. No counter was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. On 11. 1. 2007, the Court below has passed the order stating "counter not filed, perused records. No prejudice would costs. Petition allowed". A very reading of the above order would clearly indicate that the officer has neither looked into the matter nor has applied his mind. It is admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that there was a delay of 1002 days in filing an application to exparte decree. Sufficient cause was not brought to the notice of the Court in order to condone the huge delay. The lower court has not adverted its attention over the same. On the contrary, it has stated that 'no prejudice would costs to the opposite party and hence the petition was allowed'.