( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-4-1996 passed by the District Munsif at Kodangal on I. A. No. 62 of 1995 in O. S. No. 67 of 1991. The petitioner is the first defendant. By the impugned judgment and order, the Court below refused to condone the delay of about 233 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30-8-1994 and accordingly dismissed the I. A.

( 2 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that there is a delay of 233 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30-8-1994. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not be present on 30-8-1994 due to the fact that he was sick and as such he was prevented from appearing before the Court. Secondly it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the Advocate reported no instructions on 18-2-1994. Moreover, the Advocate had not issued any notice expressing his intention to retire from the case. It was in those circumstances, the petitioner could not appear on 30-8-1994. To show that he was sick th