NATARAJAN Vs. LOGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred against the order, dated 22. 06. 2007 made in I. A. No. 900 of 2006 in O. S. No. 91 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 91 of 2005, under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, seeking permanent injunction against the revision petitioner / defendant, restraining the revision petitioner and his men or agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties. However, due to the non-appearance of the revision petitioner / defendant, the suit was decreed exparte by the court below. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner herein had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree, along with the petition to condone the delay of 327 days in filing the aforesaid application. By the impugned order, dated 22. 06. 2007, the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayem, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner herein. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner / defendant.

(3.) MR. A. V. Arun, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner / tenant was suffering from jaundice and was taking treatment and that is why, he could not appear before the Court below and that there was a delay of 327 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and hence, he filed a petition in I. A. No. 900 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. It is seen from the impugned order that the revision petitioner / defendant has not produced any supporting document.