MUTHUSAAMY Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/petitioner/3rd defendant has projected this Civil Revision petition as against the order dated 05.10.2007 in I. A. No. 509of 2006 in O.S. No. 161 of 1994 passed by the learned Principal District Munsiff Ariyalur in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 390 days in setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 11.10.2000.

(2.) THE Trial Court while passing orders in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 has opined that -the benefits of the ex parte decree have been enjoyed by the respondent/plaintiff and in pursuance of the same delivery has been effected in Execution proceedings No. 73 of 2001 on 17.01.2002 and the same has been terminated on 22.01.2002 and therefore, under this circumstance, the reason assigned by the petitioner for condo nation of delay is unacceptable and ultimately dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) THE Court has paid its anxious consideration to the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their contentions. It is to be noted that in the main suit O.S. No.161 of 1994 on the file of Trial Court, an ex parte decree has been passed on 11.10.2000. Equally, it is not in dispute that the delivery has been effected on dispute that the delivery has been effected on 17.01.2002 in E.P. No.73 of 2001 and consequently the execution petition has been terminated.