ORDER :

This civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of the order dated 20.09.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni in I.A.No.197 of 2019 in O.S.No.122 of 2017.

2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court refused to condone the delay to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree suffered by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was the defendant before the trial Court. The respondent herein was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court.

3. O.S.No.122 of 2017 was a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,66,050/- based on the foot of a promissory note dated 09.07.2014. The defendant therein received suit summons but did not appear and contest. He was set ex parte on 14.06.2017. Thereafter, evidence in the suit commenced and PW.1 gave evidence on 28.06.2017. Then the learned trial Court passed a judgment and decree dated 04.07.2017. Thus, there was ex parte decree passed against the defendant.

4. The defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.197 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to condone the delay of 110 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The brief affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the said petition is extracted below :

“1. I am the defendant in the above suit and petitioner herein and I know the facts of the case. The plaintiffs have filed the above suit against me for recovery of the suit amount under the strength of pronote.

2. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant ex-parte decree against me on 04.07.2017 as I could not contest the suit.

3. I submit that as my wife health was not well I could not engage a counsel to contest the case. Recently I came to know about the passing of ex-parte decree in the above suit.

4. I further submit that now I was advised to set aside the ex-parte decree as I got good case to defend and therefore there is delay in filing this petition to set-aside the ex-parte decree dated 04.07.2017. If the delay is not condoned I would be put to great hardship.”

5. The plaintiff in the suit filed a verified counter and denied each and every allegation made in the petition and it is stated that the allegations made were not supported by any material. It further mentioned about initiation of execution proceedings and the progress made therein and attributed gross negligence on part of the petitioner and absence of bona fides. It is then stated that the plaintiff in the suit is aged 80 years and only to harass her, the present petition is filed. With those reasons, she sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni enquired into the matter and found that sufficient cause was not shown by the petitioner/defendant and dismissed the petition.

7. In this revision, the defendant in the suit states that in the suit, appeal and execution proceedings, he did not receive notice and ex parte orders were passed and by playing fraud on the Court, order of the dismissal of the petition was obtained and it is erroneous, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. If execution proceedings are allowed, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship. For these reasons, he seeks to set aside the impugned order.

8. Before issuance of notice to the respondent, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted arguments.

9. Considering the material on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for revision petitioner, the point that arises for consideration is :

“Whether the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction judiciously though sufficient cause for condoning delay was shown by the revision petitioner?

10. Point:

Counter filed by the respondent before the trial Court and the order of the trial Court, which is impugned in this revision, would show that subsequent to passing of the decree, the plaintiff/D.Hr. filed E.P.No.100 of 2017 in O.S.No.122 of 2017 seeking for arrest and detention of the J.Dr. for his failure to pay the d