P. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 23.3.2004 in I.A.No.23 of 2004 in O.S.No.130 of 1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur in dismissing the application with costs praying to condone the delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing the orders in I.A.No.23 of 2004 in O.S.No.130 of 1997 has come to the conclusion that the reasons ascribed in regard to the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree are not believable etc., and therefore, the same cannot be condoned.

(3.) IN I.A.No.23 of 2004 in O.S.No.130 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant before the trial Court, it is mentioned that the first hearing of the main suit in O.S.No.130 of 1997 has been posted on 8.8.1997 and that he has entered appearance through his counsel and since he has fallen sick frequently, he has not met his counsel and also, he has been handicapped to file the written statement and after check -up it has come to light that he has jaundice and therefore, he has taken treatment and that his advocate had advised him to take three months bed rest and he has been severely affected by the disease of jaundice and that he has taken treatment from Dr. V.V. Ramachandran, Narasimmapuram South, Karur, and that on 13.11.2001, a decree has been passed against him alone and when he has met his counsel, he came to know that an ex parte decree has been passed on 13.11.2001 and his non -appearance as well as non filing of written statement before the trial Court is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reasons which is beyond his control and therefore, prays for allowing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 13.11.2001 after countenance of delay.