J SUBRAMANIAN Vs. S SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of the Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram made in I.A.No.308 of 2005 to condone the delay of 373 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.311 of 2001 is under challenge. The suit was filed for declaration that the mutation effected in the name of the 1st defendant/petitioner herein in the property tax register is illegal and invalid.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel would point out that a medical certificate was annexed along with the affidavit filed into the Court. It is true that it was not marked. This contention by the learned counsel is not objected to by the opposite party. Apart from this, the suit was filed for declaration and the written statement was also filed. After framing the issues, the case was listed for hearing. Due to fracture in the leg, the revision petitioner could not present in the Court. Though, there was a delay of 373 days in filing the application, it is fit case where the petitioner can be given an opportunity to put forth his case. Under such circumstances, the delay is condoned subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost to the respondents directly within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the application shall stand dismissed.