M. JEYA Vs. N. SABER NISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dtd. 9/6/2010, passed in I.A. No. 84 of 2007 in O.S. No. 400 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin.

(2.) The suit has been laid by petitioner / plaintiff against the respondent / defendant for specific performance. The respondent had entered appearance through her counsel and also filed the written statement. Thereafter, when the suit had been listed for trial, inasmuch as the respondent had failed to appear in the Court to defend the matter, the ex parte decree had come to be passed against her in the suit. Seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her, the respondent had preferred an application. As there occurred a delay of 372 days in preferring the said application, to condone the said delay, she had preferred I.A. No. 84 of 2007.

(3.) With reference to the delay, according to the respondent, she has admitted that she had entered appearance in the suit on receipt of the summons. According to her, only at the instance of her husband, she has signed the vakalat and handed over the same to him and further, according to her, she being a Muslim woman, only her husband had been looking after the case on her behalf and her husband had informed her that the suit is pending and later as her husband had secured a job at Mumbai and stayed at Mumbai, he informed her that she should meet the counsel on receipt of the communication from the counsel. However, according to the respondent, she had not received any communication from the counsel and thereby, she had not appeared in the Court and accordingly, the ex parte decree had come to be passed against her on 29/11/2004 and furthermore, also stated that in the execution proceedings levied by the petitioner in E.P.No.114 of 2005, she has received the notice and on receipt of the same, she had contacted her husband and in turn her husband had contacted the counsel and the counsel had assured to defend the execution proceedings and accordingly, she did not proceed further in meeting the counsel and contest the execution proceedings and later on 1/1/2006, she came to know about the ex parte decree passed against her when some people came to the suit property to measure the same and accordingly, has come forward with the application, accordingly, stated that the delay had occurred and prayed for the condonation of the delay.