M RAMASAMY GOUNDER Vs. S KARUPPATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.Manokaran, who would contend that each and every day's delay is to be explained properly, but the applicants in I.A.No.954 of 2005 have failed to explain each and every day's delay. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would rely on 2007(4) LW 639 (R.Jacob Vs. C.Prabakar), wherein the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 2006 days was allowed by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-, and on revision this Court has allowed the revision with the following observation:-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.Manokaran would further contend that the petition filed by all the defendants is also not maintainable because the suit was decreed exparte on 09.12.2002. THE defendants 2 to 6 alone have filed a petition on 8.1.2003, but again the suit was decreed exparte on 29.12.2003. All the defendants including D1, D7 to D10 have filed I.A.No.954 of 2005 to condone the delay of 678 days on 08.12.2005 under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to the learned counsel this application is not maintainable because an exparte decree was passed against D2 to D6 on 29.12.2003 itself was not set aside till today. No doubt the days regarding delay in preferring a petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by D1, D7 to D10 in one set, and by D2 to D6 in another set may vary. But the fact remains that all the defendants have entrusted the work to one counsel viz. Mr.K.R.Somasundaram to defend them and that he had failed to inform the date of hearing for filing the written statement, which resulted in an exparte decree against them on 29.12.2003. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the petition filed by D1, D7 to D10 under I.A.No.954 of 2005 cannot be held to be not maintainable. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned District Munsif, Santhyamangalam, in I.A.No.954 of 2005 in O.S.No.42 of 2002.