(1.) Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, in I.A.No.566 of 2013 in O.S.No. 1406 of 2009 dated 18.03.2016, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as follows: 2. 1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit instituted by the respondents herein, in O.S.No.1406 of 2009, seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs. During the course of trial, on 13.12.2011, a conditional order was passed directing the petitioner herein to file his written statements. But, the petitioner failed to do so. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 19.12.2011, 21.12.2011, 04.01.2012 for ex-parte evidence and on 06.01.2012, an ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.566 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, requesting to condone the delay of 603 days in filing a petition, challenging the ex-parte decree, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The Trial Court, after hearing both the sides, had dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the relevant point of time, he was suffering from diabetics, blood pressure and chest pain, besides, he was ailing from Jaundice. For that, he took natural treatment at his native place in Udankudi, Thoothukudi District. Therefore, he was able to meet his erstwhile Counsel and able to follow the fate of the case. After recovery, he came to know about the ex-parte decree and by that time, there was a delay of 603 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have created and forged documents over the suit property and using the same, they have obtained an ex-parte decree. Therefore, he prays for allowing the present petition, so as to contest the suit on merits.