SELVARAJ Vs. NAGAJOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate assisting the Court.

(2.) THE above revision is directed against the order dated 20.11.95, returning the Criminal M.P. No. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C. No. 9 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Madurai and refusing to entertain the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the exparte order dated 10.1.94 passed in M.C. No. 9 of 1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge about the date of hearing of the said M.C. No. 9 of 1992, and therefore after the knowledge of the order dated 10.1.97, the petitioner immediately filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the order dated 10.1.97, of course, after a delay of 19 months 7 days for just and bona fide reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Crl. M.P. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C. No. 9 of 1992.

(3.) I have perused the above order of returning dated 23.11.95 of the learned Judicial Magistrate -VII, Madurai. Unfortunately, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of returning dated 23.11.95 does not contain any reasons for rejecting the application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.1.94 passed in M.C.No.9 of 1992.