ORDER: The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned District Munsif, Ambur, dismissing the petition filed by him in I.A. No.502 of 1998 to condone the delay of 283 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 12.11.1997.

2. The respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and for recovery possession of 75 cents. The suit was originally filed at the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur and numbered as O.S. No.95 of 1995. Due to the change in the territorial jurisdiction, the said suit was transferred to Ambur District Munsif Court and numbered as O.S. No.685 of 1996. As the petitioner was not represented an ex parte decree was passed on 12.11.1997. The petitioner filed I.A. No.502 of 1998 to condone the delay of 283 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A. the petitioner has stated that he did not know about the transfer of the suit to the Ambur Court and he did not know the date of hearing of the suit. He was under the impression that his counsel would inform the progress of the suit. Since he had not received any letter from the counsel, he did not know anything about the progress of the suit. He received the notice in R.E.P. No.79 of 1998. After the receipt of the notice he met his counsel at Tirupattur who informed the petitioner that he already wrote a letter to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not receive the letter. Thereafter the petitioner engaged a counsel at Ambur and came to know through him that he was set ex parte on 1.10.1997 for non-filing of the written statement and an ex parte decree was passed on 12.11.1997. The petition for setting aside the ex parte decree ought to have been filed on or before 12.12.1997, but the same was filed on 21.9.1998. Hence, there is a delay of 283 days which is neither wanton nor wiflful, due to the communication gap between the counsel and the petitioner.

3. The respondent herein filed the counter to the said I.A. stating that the petitioner was aware about the transfer of the suit to Ambur Court. The counsel who appeared at Tirupattur Court for the petitioner appeared before the Ambur Court also. However, the petitioner did not file the written statement and wanted to prolong the matter unduly and hence the Court passed an ex parte decree. There is absolutely no reason for condoning the inordinate delay of 283 days.

4. The lower Court, after considering the averments made in the affidavit as well as the counter, dismissed the petition by order dated 10.11.1999. As against the same, the present revision has been filed.

5. A perusal of the order of the Court below reveals that after the suit was transferred to the Ambur Court, the suit was posted for the first hearing on 15.3.1996 and thereafter the matter was adjourned on number of occasions for filing the written statement by the petitioner. As no written statement was filed for nearly 1 1/2 years after the transfer of the suit to Ambur Court, the petitioner was set ex parte on 1.10.1997 and the ex parte decree was passed on 12.11.1997.

6. When the matter was heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counsel who appeared for the petitioner at the Munsif Court, Tirupattur did not appear in the Munsif Court, Ambur. Further the petitioner was not informed about the transfer of the suit and as such the petitioner cannot be blamed for his absence. Hence, the delay is a bona fide one and the same ought to have been condoned by the lower Court.

7. When such argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I directed him to get an affidavit from the counsel who appeared for the petitioner at Tirupattur Court, as I find from the proceedings of the lower Court that the counsel engaged by the petitioner at Tirupattur Court appeared at Ambur Court also. Even though twice time was taken, the learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document