Proper course for being adopted is to impose heavy cost.

1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 11. 1995 made in E.A. No. 78 of 1993 in E.P. No. 28 of 1987 in O.S. No. 78 of 1976 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondent under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 265 days caused in filing the petition to restore the Execution Petition dismissed for default.

2. A glance at the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that on behalf of the petitioner before the Execution Court, the Syndicate Bank, Karingal Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, it would be contended that the above Execution Petition was posted for arguments after many hearings and on 24. 1992, when it was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence the said Execution Petition was dismissed for default, about which the petitioner came to know only on 1. 1993 through the Advocates Clerk and as such a delay of 265 days in filing the petition to restore the said Execution Petition has become inevitable; that on account of family problems, their Advocate was not able to attend to the Court in the last six months prior to filing the petition and that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton but in the circumstances stated above and would pray for condoning the same.

3. In the counter filed by the respondent before the lower Court, the averments in the petition would be generally denied and it would also be alleged that the petition to excuse the delay is not permissible in Execution Proceedings; that no valid or tangible reason has been assigned for the delay caused; that the petitioner has to explain the delay of each day and that the decree is already barred prior to filing of this petition and as such the petition is not maintainable and would pray for dismissing the petition with costs.

4. The Execution Court, remarking that the petitioner before it, examining on its behalf P.W.1 and since no contra evidence was let in on the part of the respondent and taking the reasons assigned on the part of the petitioner therein further justifying that since the Advocate for the petitioner did not inform him of the position of the case, the Execution Petition had come to be dismissed and hence the delay had occurred, which has to be condoned, would allow the petition without costs.

5. Aggrieved, the present petitioner, who is the respondent before the Lower Court has come forward to prefer the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds such as (i) that the Lower Court without any reasons has condoned the delay; (ii) that the Lower Court failed to note that the averments of the affidavit were not supported by the evidence of the respondent herein and on the new grounds offered, condoned the delay; (iii) that the lower Court erred in holding that it was on account of the Advocate not informing the dismissal of the Execution Petition for default, the delay had caused; and (iv) that the lower Court has failed to appreciate that the decree had been time barred even prior to filing of the application to condone the delay.

.6. During arguments, it is only the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and neither the respondent nor his counsel made their appearance and hence, upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and based on the materials available on record, the following order is passed:

.No doubt, the delay is inordinate numbering 265 days and very weak reasons have been assigned on the part of the respondent herein. The allegation that their counsel did not inform them of the dismissal of the Execution Petition for default is not a good or acceptable reason. However, on behalf of the respondent herein, its officer got into the box and deposed to the facts of the case alleged and as it is contended on the part of the lower Court, since no evidence contra came forth, the lower Court trusted the ev