VIJI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.178 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

(2.) The Revision petitioner appeared through an Advocate and the matter was posted for filing written statement on 06.12.2013. The petitioner did not file the written statement on the hearing date. Subsequently, an ex-parte decree was passed on 18.02.2014. Subsequent to the said ex-parte decree passed by the Court below, the petitioner received summons in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent / plaintiff. Immediately, on receipt of the said summons, the petitioner engaged a counsel and thereafter, applied for copy of the order. The said absence and non-filing of the written statement is due to the above said bona-fide reasons. Hence, the petitioner filed the Interlocutory Application No.1140 of 2015 in the aforesaid suit for condoning the delay of 518 days. But, without considering the bona-fide reasons stated by the petitioner, the said application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition before this Court.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent, denying the averments in the affidavit would submit that though the petitioner appeared through an advocate, he did not contest the case. Hence, an ex-parte order was passed on 18.02.2014. The petitioner received the notice in the Execution Petition on 02.02.2015 itself and appeared through advocate. Even after receiving the summons in the Execution Petition, there was inordinate delay in filing the present application. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is sustainable.