This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No.393 of 1992 filed in O.S.No.105 of 1991. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property. The plaint was filed on 13. 1992 and the same was returned for complying with certain defects on 6. 1992. The plaint was re-presented with a delay of 102 days. According to the plaintiff the reason for the delay is that the plaint and other connected papers got mixed up with other case bundles and could not be traced and represented in time. Hence it was submitted that the delay is due to the above said bona fide fact. However, the delay was not condoned. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.

2. Learned senior counsel Mr. G. Subrmaniam appearing for Mr. R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaint was returned with a direction to re- present the same after complying with the return on or before 2. 1992. But it was not represented in time. It was represented with a delay of 102 days. According to the petitioner the delay was not deliberate and wanton and t