( 1 ) BY the order under revision, the Court below dismissed I. A. No. 580 of 1999 filed by the petitioner herein-defendant no. 1 in the suit filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 282 days in filing the petition under Order IX rule 13. CPC to set aside and ex parte decree dated 9. 9. 1998. Admittedly, the notice was served on the petitioner-Municipal Corporation in the suit. The following is the only explanation offered by the petitioner-Municipal corporation to explain the inordinate delay of 282 days :". . . . HOWEVER, in this regard it is submitted that due to oversight the suit proceedings were not pursued by the staff and which resulted in an ex parte decree, but non-filing of written statement is not intentional, it is only accidental and unavoidable and due to over-work by the staff of the Municipal Corporation. "

( 2 ) IN the first place, the explanation offered by the Municipal Corporation is as vague as it could be. The explanation is very bald and it does not contain details and specifies or the circumstances which led the Municipal corporation not to file written statement and not to represent itself or through a Lawyer in the suit. Secondly, it was revealed that after the Court decreed the suit on 9. 9. 1998, the plaintiff on 5. 1. 1999, got issued a notice to the Chairman of the Municipal Council and to the respondents 5 and 6 informing them about the passing of the decree and calling upon them to satisfy the decree as the plaintiffs who were suffering for want of money on account of the sudden demise of the husband of the first plaintiff. The notice was served on the Chairman of the Municipal Council, but nothing was heard from the Municipal Council. Thereafterwards, E. P. No. 41 of 1999 was filed to execute the decree by way of attachment and sale of movable properties stocked in the office of the Municipal Council. The Court in the Execution Petition, issued the notice to the judgment-debtors including the petitioner herein and all the judgment-debtors received the notices, but they did not appear in the E. P. proceedings. In the circumstances, on 12. 4. 1999, the Court below ordered attachment of the movables and when the bailiff went to the Office of the Municipal Council to attach the moveables, the petitioner refused to receive warrant of attachment. Under the circumstances, the bailiff could not execute the warrant of attachment. When the facts borne out from the records stood thus, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 580 of 1999 falsely averred that he came to know through his subordinate staff about the passing of the decree on 9. 9. 1998, just a day before filing I. A. No. 580 of 1999. It was submitted by the learned Counsel at the Bar that i. A. was filed on 21. 7. 1999 and by that time too much water had flown under the bridge, and for the reasons best known to the petitioner, all those facts were suppressed in the affidavit, and no explanation, let alone satisfactory explanation, was offered in the affidavit.

( 3 ) I am quite conscious of the fact that the Courts are relatively liberal while dealing with the applications to condone the delay particularly when such applications are filed by the State and State authorities, Statutory Corporations, local bodies etc. But, here is a case where the facts narrated above clearly go to show that there was culpable negligence on the part of the officers of the Municipal Corporation occupying important position in it to defend the Corporation. As if that is not enough, the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 580 of 1999 falsely claims that the deponent of the affidavit came to know about the passing of the decree only one day before filing of the application. I should state that this conduct itself should disentitle the petitioner to any relief at the hands of this Court. If the corporation has suffered any loss on account of the negligence of the concerned officers and the staff, it may