G.S. ANANDAKRISHNAN Vs. T. RAJASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petitions are directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dtd. 16/12/2009, passed in I.A. Nos. 48 and 49 of 2009 in O.S. No. 112 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani.

(2.) The suit in O.S. No. 112 of 2004 has been laid by the respondent / plaintiff against the petitioner / defendant for specific performance. It is found that the petitioner / defendant has entered appearance through his counsel in the abovesaid suit and also filed his written statement and thereafter, when the suit had been listed for trial, inasmuch as the counsel for the petitioner had reported no instruction and accordingly, the petitioner was called and being remained absent, the Court below set the petitioner ex parte and passed the ex parte decree in favour of the respondent / plaintiff in the suit on 29/6/2006. Seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him, it is found that the petitioner has come forward with I.A. No. 49 of 2009. Inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 906 days in preferring the abovesaid application, to condone the said delay, he has preferred I.A. No. 48 of 2009.

(3.) The reasons given by the petitioner for the delay are that inasmuch as he had not received any communication from his counsel and furthermore as he had shifted his residence, the communication sent by his counsel had not been received by him and accordingly, he had been unable to appear in the Court when the matter was listed for trial. Furthermore, he would also state that inasmuch as he had been suffering from high blood pressure and also heart ailment and taking treatment, he was unable to contact his counsel and know about the stage of the suit and thereby also, he had not been aware of the ex parte decree passed against him in the suit. In addition to that, he would also state that following the recovery from his ailment as abovestated, according to him, he had met with an accident on 4/11/2007 and sustained serious injuries and resultantly, taking treatment with reference to the same and only after recovery, he was able to contact his counsel and thereby also, the delay had occurred. The petitioner would further state that he had come to know about the ex parte decree only through his friends, who had been apprised of the same by the respondent and accordingly, stated that the delay had occurred in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and prayed for the condonation of the delay and also to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him in the suit laid by the respondent.