THANGAVEL Vs. SUBASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 36 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/applicant/defendant has filed an I. A. No. 269 of 2003 in O. S. No. 36 of 1999 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 460 days in setting aside the exparte decree dated 11. 03. 2002. In the application filed by the civil revision petitioner/applicant in I. A. No. 269 of 2003, the applicant has inter alia averred that, during August Amin from Court giving summons directing him to appear in Court on 05. 09. 2002 and that the next day, he went to Bangalore for eking his livelihood and he suffered jaundice and took native treatment and that the said treatment continued and that after meeting his counsel, he came to know that the matter was posted to 11. 02. 2002 and thereafter, an exparte decree was passed and therefore, he could not file an application in time and there was a delay of 460 days in filing the application to condone the delay.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff in the counter has taken a specific plea that on 11. 03. 2002, an exparte order was passed and till 05. 09. 2002, the petitioner was in station and there is no explanation on the side of the civil revision petitioner as to why he could not appear during the period from 11. 03. 2002 till 05. 09. 2002 and therefore, the application is false and not maintainable in law.