The order passed in I.A.No.2093 of 2007 in O.S.No.355 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Viruthachalam, is under challenge before this Court. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.355 of 2003, had filed the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 970 days in preferring an application to set aside the exparte decree.

2. The reasoning stated in the affidavit to the application in I.A.No.2093 of 2007 is that the defendant / revision petitioner herein was not residing in the address furnished in the plaint and that there was no service of summons in the suit to him and only from the notice received by him in the execution proceedings he came to know about the exparte decree passed against him in O.S.No.355 of 2003 on 012. 2003 itself. The entire case records from the trial Court were called for and perused. The return summons in the suit in O.S.No.355 of 2003 will go to show that the summons have been served on the defendant on 110. 2003 itself.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner during the course of his arguments would state that the signature in the served copy of the summons do