SUSILAMANI Vs. K RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC , against the order and decretal order dated 26.11.2007 passed in I.A.No. 687 of 2006 in O.S.No. 85 of 1997 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge,Coimbatore.) The revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 26.11.2007 in I.A.No,687 of 2006 in O.S.No. 85 of 1997 passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 630 days in filing petition to set aside the exparte decree.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No,687 of 2006 has among other things observed that 'the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants participated in the trial and in the year 2003 an exparte decree has been passed and it is for the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants to follow the case and after the exparte decree, the respondent/plaintiff waited till 2005 and then filed a final decree petition and now the petition is filed without any sufficient reason to satisfy the Court for long delay and that the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants are have not been prejudiced by the preliminary decree and hence the petition is dismissed.

(3.) ON a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No,687 of 2006, it is candidly clear that the trial Court has inter alia cryptically mentioned only that ' now the petition is filed without any sufficient reason to satisfy the Court for long delay and further that the revision petitioners are not prejudiced by the preliminary decree etc . The aforesaid observation of the trial Court will not suffice in the considered opinion of this Court in regard to the disposal of I.A.No,687 of 2006. As a matter of fact, the trial Court has not pinpointedly referring any of the reasons as sufficient one in passing an order in I.A.No,687 of 2006.