SUDARAMOORTHY Vs. P KANIMOZHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit against the petitioner / defendant for specific performance. It is found that the petitioner / defendant has suffered an ex parte decree in the above said suit on 05.01.2005. Seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him, the petitioner / defendant has moved an application, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 244 days in filing the said application, it is found that the petitioner / defendant has preferred I.A.No.2 of 2006 to condone the said delay.

(2.) For the condonation of the delay, the reasons given by the petitioner / defendant is that on account of the fight / clash between him and his son, a criminal case was registered against him and he was, consequently, lodged in jail for two months and in the said fight / clash, he has sustained injuries in his left arm and taking treatment laying in bed for more than ten months and thereafter only, he was able to contact his Lawyer and came to know about the ex parte decree and hence, the delay had occurred and therefore, prayed for the condonation of the same.

(3.) The above application preferred by the petitioner / defendant was stiffly resisted by the respondent / plaintiff contending that the reasons given by the petitioner / defendant for the condonation of the delay are imaginary, false and made for the purpose of the application and the petitioner / defendant has deliberately left the suit to go for ex parte and after the obtainment of the ex parte decree passed in the suit, the respondent / plaintiff has levied execution proceedings against the petitioner / defendant and the petitioner / defendant, after entering appearance in the execution petition, has chosen to lay the present application and hence, sans acceptable cause, the application is not entitled for acceptance and liable to be dismissed.