The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for parties to satisfactorily explain inordinate delays in filing petitions to set aside ex parte decrees, and the caution against protracting proceedings through repeated petitions.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 19.1.2009 made in I.A No. 1258 of 2008 on O.S. No. 76 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

2. The Petitioner herein was the Defendant in the Suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2004, that was filed by the Respondent herein in year 2000 before Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam seeking a money decree, based on a promissory note dated 10.1.1997 executed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. It is seen that on 6.9.2001, the Suit was decreed ex parte as there was no representation for the Petitioner/Defendant and the Petitioner/Defendant was also called absent, though the case was posted for trail in the special list, subsequently, the Petitioner herein filed a Petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree. After hearing both sides, on 14.11.2003 the ex parte decree was set aside by the said Court and the case was again taken on file.

3. On 19.2.2004, in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction statutorily raise, the case was transferred to District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam and re-numbered as O.S. No.76 of 2004 on the file of the said Court. When the case was posted again for trail in the special list, there was no representation and the Petitioner/ Defendant was also called absent, hence again an ex parte decree was passed by the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam. Then, the Petitioner/Defendant filed a Petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree along with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 844 days in filing the aforesaid petition. The Court below after hearing both sides allowed the Petition and also set aside the ex parte decree, then the case was again taken on file. On 7.9.2007, when the case was posted for trial, P.W.1 again taken on file, On 7.9.2007, when the case was posted for trial, P.W.1 was examined in chief and the case was posted on 14.9.2007, 18.9.2007 and 24.9.2007 for cross-examination of the said witness. On the side of the Petitioner/defendant there was a representation for settlement. Accordingly, the Court below granted time for settling the dispute at the request of the Petitioner/Defendant.

4. Though the case was adjourned on 18.9.2007, 24.9.2007 and 3.10.2007, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Defendant reported no instructions before the Court below and the Petitioner/Defendant was also called absent for the third time and again ex parte decree was passed. Aggrieved by which the Petitioner herein filed the Petition under Sections 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 347 days and also to set aside the ex parte decree. After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the Petition holding that there was no bona fide reason to condone the delay based on the conduct of the Petitioner/Defendant in dragging on the matter. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that due to the ill health of the Petitioner’s wife, he could not prosecute the case and therefore, one more opportunity be given to the Petitioner/Defendant.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that there is no bonafide reason to condone the delay and allow the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also drew the attention of this court to the impugned order passed by the Court below wherein the Court has categorically stated that the impugned ex parte decree was passed on the third time and the Application had been filed casually by the Petitioner herein. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Defendant has not disputed the fact that the Suit was originally pending before the Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam and ex parte decree was passed on 6.9.2001 and subsequently, the same was set aside on the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Co