This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order passed by the lower Court condoning the delay of 264 days in filing the restoration petition in I.A.No.1032 of 2003. The lower Court has, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case arising out of the affidavit and counter file on either side, condoned the delay of 264 days on payment of cost of Rs.750/-.)

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiff/revision petitioner had filed the suit O.S.No.580 of 2001 before the lower Court against the defendants for permanent injunction. The second defendant/respondent herein was set exparte in the said suit. To set aside the exparte order, the second defendant/revision petitioner herein had filed an application I.A.No.1989 of 2002 along with the written statement. But without disposing I.A.No.1989 of 2002, the lower Court had passed an exparte decree in the suit. So, the second defendant/respondent herein had filed an application I.A.No.1032 of 2003 to set aside the exparte decree. When I.A.No.1032 of 2003 was posted for enquiry on 27.06.2005, the learned counsel for the second defendant/respondent herein could not reach the Court in time since he had gone to the District Court. In the result, I.A.No.1037 of 2003 was dismissed by the lower Court for default. The second defendants counsel sent a letter to him regarding the dismissal of I.A.No.1037 of 2003, but the same was not received by the second defendant. Hence, there was a delay of 264 days in filing an application to restore I.A.No.1037 of 2003, which was filed to set aside the exparte decree. The second defendant/respondent herein filed I.A.No.1926 of 2006 to condone the delay of 264 days in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.1032 of 2003. The lower Court, after hearing both sides and after perusing the records, has allowed the said application on payment of cost of Rs.750/-to the other side. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. Heard Mr.N.Subramanian for Mr.C.R.Mohan learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Uma the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel of the petitioner would submit in his argument that the lower Court, without verifying whether the written statement has been filed by the respondent herein/2nd defendant along with the application in I.A.No.1989 of 2002, had accepted the contentions of the respondent/2nd defendant, and had grossly erred in finding that the respondent has got fair chances of success in the petition to set aside the exparte decree. He would further submit that the petition filed to condone the delay of 294 days in I.A.No.1926 of 2006 was filed after a long delay of four months, apart from 294 days delay, and no explanation has been offered for the said delay, and the said petition ought to have been dismissed by the lower Court. He would also submit that the respondent did not explain the delay properly and the lower Court had not considered the valuable right accrued to the plaintiff/revision petitioner. He would further submit that the lower Court had not considered the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court cited before the Court. He would further submit that the delay of 294 days is not correct and four months time have not been added to the delay and the lower Court but it had wrongly exercised its discretion to condone the delay on payment of Rs.750/-, which is not sustainable. He would also cite a judgment of this Court reported in 2007(4) LW 639 in between R.Jacob Vs. C.Prabakar for the principle that unexplained long delay of nearly 5 ½ years cannot be condoned. He would, therefore, request the Court that the delay caused in this matter is also similarly liable to be rejected. He would also request the Court to interfere with the orders passed by the lower Court and to dismiss the petition filed therein and thereby to allow the revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respond