SAKTHIVEL Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 18. 09. 2009 in I. A. No. 97 of 2009 in o. S. No. 216 of 2005 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sikali in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 221 days in preferring the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 10. 06. 2008.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I. A. No. 97 of 2009 dated 18. 09. 2009, has inter alia observed that 'the revision petitioner has not explained the each and every days delay (in respect of the delay of 221 days) in preferring the application to set aside the exparte decree and moreover, the application to condone the delay of 221 days is not to be allowed and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs. '

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the trial Court has filed to see that the petitioner/defendant has been suffering from jaundice few days prior to 10. 06. 2008 and that the petition for setting aside the exparte decree has been filed immediately after he recovered from the illness and therefore, the petitioner has been prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the application in time and also the fact remains that jaundice can be cured by taking native treatment and the non-production of medical certificate will not vitiate the case of the petitioner and also that the trial Court has committed an error in thinking that the application should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not named the person who has treated him for jaundice and since the petitioner has been affected with jaundice, there has occasioned a delay of 221 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree and in short, the trial Court should have given the revision petitioner an opportunity to contest the suit on merits and if the order of the trial Court passed in I. A. No. 97 of 2009 is allowed to stand as it is, then it will result in failure of justice besides causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.