(1.) RESPONDENT had filed the suit O.S.No.1338 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur, against the petitioner for declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 19.01.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.646 of 2001 to condone the delay of 942 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. In the meantime, the respondent filed E.P.No.29 of 1999 for delivery of possession and obtained an ex parte order of delivery on 30.03.2000, pursuant to which the petitioner filed E.A.No.61 of 2001 to set aside the said ex parte order of delivery and E.A.No.24 of 2004 for appointment of Taluk Surveyor to find out the correct survey number of the property in possession of the petitioner to locate the survey number 1174/3A2 and also to find out the person in actual possession. The Executing Court dismissed E.A.No.24 of 2004 on 27.12.2005, against which the petitioner preferred C.R.P.NPD.No.993 of 2006 on the file of this Court and the same came to be dismissed.
(2.) NOW, the order of dismissal, dated 27.12.2005, passed in I.A.No.646 of 2001, refusing to condone the delay of 942 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit, is under challenge in this revision.
(3.) WHEN there is total lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner while coming forward with the application, I am of the view that this case does not deserve liberal approach formula in matters relating to condonation of delay. Therefore, the reason adduced by the petitioner that there was a communication gap between him and his previous counsel on record for seeking condonation of extraordinary delay of 942 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree cannot be countenanced.