Onus lies on the person seeking condonation of delay to prove his promptness.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair order and decretal order dated 8. 1997 passed in I.A.No.471 of 1995 in O.S.No.215 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein in O.S. No.214 of 1988 for recovery of Rs. 3,52,8855. Ten defendants were set ex parte. The petitioner/first defendant alone contested the suit by filing a written statement. On 2. 1993 the petitioner also was set ex parte and preliminary decree has been passed.

3. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1146 for passing a final decree in the above said suit. On coming to know about the ex parte decree passed in the above suit, on receipt of notice in the above said application, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.471 of 1995 to condone the delay of 410 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner did not inform him the date of trial of the suit.

4. This application was resisted by the plaintiff, the respondent herein, contending, that earlier the petitioner was set ex parte and the ex parte decree so passed was set aside on the application filed by the petitioner and that he knew about the date of the trial and as such he did not incline to appear before the Court, despite several opportunities having been given to the petitioner for his appearance for the trial.

5. On considering the submissions made by the counsel on either side and on going through the affidavit and the counter filed by the counsel, the lower Court has passed the impugned order rejecting the application to condone the delay. Aggrieved over this order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

6. Mr. Sundaragopal, counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the authorities of this Court and the Apex Court contended that the Courts while considering the application for condoning the delay should take a liberal view, so that the parties concerned could be given opportunities to put forth their case in the main suit.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned order, grounds and the affidavit.

8. Admittedly, the suit has been filed in July, 1988. On 30.12.1988 the defendants 2 to 10 were set ex parte. On 3. 1989 the defendant No.1 1 was also set ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner the first defendant alone contested the suit by filing a written statement.

9. After framing of issues, the case was listed for trial on 18. 1992. On 9. 1992 when the case was taken for trial the first defendant, the petitioner herein did not appear and so, the suit was decreed by setting the petitioner as ex parte.

10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.687 of 1992 to set exide the ex parte decree. Accordingly, after hearing the parties concerned, the trial court allowed the application. Again, the suit was posted for trial on 210. 1992. On that date also the petitioner did not appear. In order to give one more opportunity, the suit was adjourned to 211. 1992. Even on that date he was absent. Finally, it was posted on 12. 1992. On the said date, the counsel for the petitioner one Mr. Renga Ramanujam made an endorsement reporting no instructions. So, on the basis of this endorsement, the trial Court passed the exparte decree on 12. 1992.@BT-SMALL =

11. Now, the petitioner, after a delay of 410 days, had filed the application in I.A.No.471 of 1995 to condone the delay. The only reason given in the said application was that he was not intimated about the date of trial by the counsel. The trial Court, on consideration of the submissions, petition and counter, correctly dismissed the said application by its impugned order, holding that the reason given in the petition to condone the delay of 410 days was not sufficient and was not a bona fide one.

12. Mr. Sundar