V. PONNUSAMY AND OTHERS Vs. P. PAVUL NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S.No.326 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration, etc. in the suit, in which, an exparte order was passed against the defendants on 13.02.2013 on account of their non appearance. Therefore, the revision petitioner/5th defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.188 of 2015 for condoning the delay of 726 days in filing petition for setting aside the said exparte order and the said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, on the ground that no proper reasons were assigned for the delay. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that the Trial Court had posted the matter for cross examination of the plaintiff by the petitioner on 05.02.2013 and on the said date, due to his ill-health, he could not appear before the Trial Court and he also did not contact his Advocate, which ended in dismissal of the suit against the defendants. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the plaintiff sought for a larger relief of declaration of title in the suit, the Court should have considered the genuine reasons put forth by the revision petitioner to condone the delay, as the plaintiff is not entitled to the entire relief as prayed for merely because of non appearance of the defendants. Contending that his non appearance before the Trial Court is neither wanton nor wilful and no prejudice would be caused to other side, in the event of condoning the delay so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the exparte order, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material documents available on record. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.