J VASANTHI Vs. MEENAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / defendant having suffered an ex parte decree in the suit laid by the respondent / plaintiff has preferred an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 24 days in filing the said application, it is found that she has preferred I.A.No.48 of 2007 to condone the said delay. The reason given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay is that as she was suffering from chikungunya and unable to move and do her normal chores and accordingly, it is her further case that she along with her family left to the native place at Periyakulam and stayed there and took treatment and further, as she was continuing her agricultural work at the native place, she was unable to contact her counsel and further, it is pleaded that her Advocate had sent a letter to her address at Nilakkottai informing the date of the suit and as she was not aware of the said communication sent by the Advocate and only after recovery from illness and after she had come to Nilakkottai, she has become aware of the ex parte decree passed against her in the suit and as she has a good case to defend and the ex parte decree is, therefore, to be set aside, according to her, the delay in filing the said application to set aside the ex parte decree should be condoned.

(2.) The said application was resisted by the respondent / plaintiff contending that the petitioner / defendant deliberately remained absent though the Court had granted sufficient opportunities to enable her to file the written statement and the present plea put forth by her that she has been affected by chikungunya and therefore, unable to move and hence went to her native place along with her family are all made only for the purpose of this case and further, it is stated that there is no material placed whatsoever to substantiate the reasons given by the petitioner / defendant for the delay and therefore, it is contended that the reasons adduced for the condonation of delay are false and the petitioner / defendant having not come forward with sufficient cause to condone the delay, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) In support of the case of the respective parties, it is found that no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced.