P VISWANATHAN Vs. P SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.

(2.) THE review is sought for in the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3321 of 2007 dated 03.03.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on 1998(II) CTC 533 [N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy] and also another ratio (2008) 3 MLJ 268 [Adhikesavan vs. Kalavathi] and contended that length of delay is immaterial so long as delay is properly explained. THEre is absolutely no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law laid down in the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1998 (II) CTC 533, which was followed in (2008)3 MLJ 268 by this Court. But the only difference is that after a decree has been passed in O.S.No.605 of 2004, the plaintiff has filed E.P.No.58 of 2006 for executing the decree. THE review petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.605 of 2004 had entered appearance in E.P.No.58 of 2006 even in the year 2006. THE defendant/review petitioner herein had the knowledge about the ex parte decree against him in O.S.No.605 of 2004 through the notice in E.P.58 of 2006. But without filing any application to set aside the ex parte decree, immediately after receiving the notice in E.P.No.58 of 2006, the review petitioner herein/the defendant had filed I.A.No.644 of 2007 only in the year 2007 to condone the delay of 886 days, which has been rejected by the Court below. THEre is no explanation forth coming from the review petitioner why he has not filed an application to condone the delay or a petition to set aside the ex parte decree immediately after getting a notice in E.P.No.58 of 2006. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to review the order passed in C.R.P.No.3321 of 2007 dated 03.03.2008.