Inspite of not showing sufficient cause for delay, delay has been condoned.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 112. 2002 made in I.A. No. 640 of 2002 in O.S. No. 16 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. IV Coimbatore at Tripur.

2. Therevision petitioners are defendants in the said suit. As against them the plaintiffs have instituted a suit for the relief of specific performance.

3. It is stated that on 12. 1996 the defendants have entered into an agreement with one Subbay Gounder, who is the husband of the first plaintiff, to sell the suit properties for Rs.3,24,000 It is further stated that on the date of sale agreement, the defendants have received a sum of Rs.3,00,000 from the first plaintiff’s husband. Thereafter, the husband of the first plaintiff died on 14. 1996. Since the defendants refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Legal heirs of the late Subbay Gounder, inspite of their readiness and willingness to pay the balance, the said suit was filed against the defendants.

4. After appearance, the defendants filed their written statement. According to the defendants they received a sum of Rs.1,50,000 from the first plaintiff’s husband to meet urgent family expenses. Since the late Subbay Giunder demanded to handover the original documents, the same were handed over by the defendants to the late Subbay Gounder and they also executed the sale agreement in his favour.

5. When the said case was posted for trial on 22. 2002, as no representation was made either by the defendants or by their counsel on that day and therefore, the said suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the defendants contacted their counsel on 210. 2002 and they have instructed to file a petition to set aside the order passed against them. Accordingly, the defendants filed a petition in I.A. No. 640 of 2002 to condone the delay of 206 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. That petition was vehemently contested by the plaintiffs.

6. After enquiry, the learned Judge dismissed the said petition for condoning the delay of 207 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. As against the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, present revision has been filed.

7. The only short point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is sustainable in law.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as their respondents.

9. The learnedcounsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that due to unavoidable circumstances the revision petitioner has not able to attend the Court when the case was posted for trial on 22. 2002.

10. Further the learned counsel would point out that since the revision petitioner was indisposed and took continuous treatment for typhoid and blood pressure, he was not able to file the petition to set aside the said ex parte decree.

11. The learned counsel would contend that due to unavoidable circumstances and prolonged illness, the revision petitioner has not able to attend the Court when the case was posted for trial on 22. 2002. In para 4 of the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner it is stated as follows:

“4. I further submit that the above case was posted on 22. 2002 for trial. I am Suffering from Diabetes. Hence I was taking treatment in hospital at the time of the suit came up for trial. Therefore, I could not appear before this Hon’ble Court on 22. 2002. Hence, this Hon’ble Court called me and setting ex parte, as I was not appeared on that day.”

12. Insupport the contention the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the following decisions for consideration of this Court.

13. In G.P. Srivatsava v. Shri R.K. Raizada and others, J.T. (2000)2 S.C. 569, the Division Bench of the Apex Court observed as follows:

“8. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the nephew of the counsel of the appellant had died in a