M. Venugopal, J.

1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/3rd defendant has projected this Civil Revision petition as against the order dated 010. 2007 in I. A. No. 509of 2006 in O.S. No. 161 of 1994 passed by the learned Principal District Munsiff Ariyalur in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 390 days in setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 110. 2000.

2. The Trial Court while passing orders in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 has opined that “the benefits of the ex parte decree have been enjoyed by the respondent/plaintiff and in pursuance of the same delivery has been effected in Execution proceedings No. 73 of 2001 on 17.01.2002 and the same has been terminated on 22.01.2002 and therefore, under this circumstance, the reason assigned by the petitioner for condo nation of delay is unacceptable and ultimately dismissed the application without costs.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/3rd defendant, the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A. No. 509 of 2006 without considering the reasons ascribed by the revision petitioner in the aff