G AMSAVENI Vs. P KANAKARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Revision is to the Order of dismissal of the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, declining to condone the delay of 276 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte Decree.

(2.) WHETHER delay was due to negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Petitioners and whether the impugned Order declining to condone the delay of 276 days is sustainable, are the points arising for consideration in this Revision Petition.

(3.) CONTENDING that no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for not pursuing the matter, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the Petitioners were all along participating in the proceedings and there is no sufficient cause shown for the delay. It was further submitted that the averments in the affidavit are bereft of particulars and 3rd Petitioner has given contradictory version about his address. It was further submitted that various proceedings having been ordered, the same cannot be ordered to be reopened at the instance of Petitioners who had all along been participating in the proceedings. The learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions - 2005 (4)CTC 489 SC " Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State bank of India Staff Association; 2005 (11) SCC 197 " State of rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co; 2003 (1)LW 585 " 1993 (1)SCC 572 " Binod Bihari Singh Vs. Union of India; 2003 (1)LW 585 " Sundar gnanaolivu rep. By Power of Attorney Agent Vs. Rajendran Gnanavolivy rep. By its Power of Attorney Agent; 2006 (5) CTC 822 " Kaliammal and others Vs. Sundarammal and another; 2001 (3)CTC 321 " Reliance Industries Ltd. , rep. By Reliance Consultancy Services Vs. M. Rajkumari; 2001 (4)CTC 722 " kandaswamy and 4 others Vs. Krishnamandiram Trust by its Trustees; 2004 (3) MLJ 36 " Rathinathammal Vs. Muthusamy and others; 2003 (3)MLJ 709 " ramlal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.