C BALU Vs. B SELVARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision has been filed against the order in i. A. No. 99 of 2005 in O. S. No. 48 of 2004 on the file of the principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, by the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in O. S. No. 48 of 2004, filed by his wife and daughter for maintenance. The suit was decreed in exparte on 10. 2. 2005. The plaintiffs have filed ep. No. 96 of 2005 for executing the decree. After receiving notice in EP, the revision petitioner had filed I. A. No. 99 of 2005 in O. S. No. 48 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation act to condone the delay of 228 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

(2.) THE learned Trial Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that there is no sufficient reasoning shown in the affidavit to the petition to condone the delay of 228 days. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Trial Judge, this revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) HEARD Mr. V. Balamurugan learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. Srinath Sridevan learned counsel appearing for the respondents and considered their respective submissions.