ASANKHAN Vs. MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 22. 01. 2007 made in I. A. No. 608 of 2006 in O. S. No. 304 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner / defendant suffered a money decree in the suit in O. S. No. 304 of 2004 and he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 132 days. The revision petitioner has assigned the reason in the accompanying affidavit that he was a patient suffering from kidney transplantation and he was in need of medical investigation and health care and that is why, he could not appear before the court below and that the exparte decree was passed and there had been a delay of 132 days.

(3.) MR. G. ETHIRAJULU, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton and that due to the health condition, the petitioner could not appear before the trial court.