The court emphasized that deliberate delay tactics and abuse of process of law should not be condoned, especially when it would cause injustice to other parties involved.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A.No.129 of 2009 in O.S.No.656 of 2002, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Erode.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Defendant in O.SNo.656 of 2002, seeking a money decree for a sum of `1,23,200/- to be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant with interest and cost and the Suit was decreed ex parte. The Revision Petitioner herein as Defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.129 of 2010 seeking an order to condone the delay of 1581 days in representing the Application to set aside the ex parte decree.

3. In the Counter Affidavit, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the Petitioner had filed the above Application after four years and four months to condone the delay in representing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree, only with a view to protract the proceeding and that there was no Affidavit filed in support of the Petition filed by him. Instead of filing Affidavit, only an attested statement was filed. Further, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the averments of the Petitioner made in the Petition are false. It is seen that the Petitioner has stated that he had misplaced his bundle, hence the Suit was decreed on 08.09.2004. Pursuant to the decree, Execution Petition in E.P.No.87 of 2005 was filed, wherein the Petitioner herein appeared through his Counsel for the hearing on 11.07.2005 and took time for filing his Counter. The E.P was posted on several hearings, however, the Petitioner did not file his Counter in the said Execution Petition and the Petitioner was set ex parte on 29.11.2005.

4. Then the Petitioner filed an Execution Application in E.A.No.442 of 2005 to set aside the said ex parte order passed in E.P.No.87 of 2005 along with his Counter. Even in the Counter Statement, the Petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor had not referred anything about the Petition filed by him to set aside the ex parte decree. The said E.A.No. 442 of 2005 was allowed only on payment of cost and only after enquiry, the Court below ordered arrested of the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.87 of 2005. The First Respondent herein specifically stated in the Counter filed before the Court below that the Petitioner had evaded arrest and that he could not be arrested. Hence, the First Respondent did not press the E.P.No.87 of 2005 before the Court below and the same was dismissed.

5. Subsequently, the First Respondent filed the Execution Petition in E.P. No.297 of 2006, in order to bring the Petitioner’s property for sale to realize the amount payable under the decree. However, the Petitioner evaded service of notice, hence, substituted service was ordered and paper publication was effected. In spite of the said fact the Petitioner failed to appear, hence, he was set ex parte on 15.02.2007 in the Execution Proceeding. Pursuant to the order of adjudication, the Petitioner’s property was brought for court auction sale on 27.09.2007 and after the sale, the same was confirmed on 10.12.2007 and Sale Certificate was also issued by the Court below. Subsequently, the auction purchaser filed E.A. No.277 of 2008 for delivery of possession of the property. In the said E.A. No.277 of 2008, the Petitioner was served with a notice for the hearing dated 23.10.2008 and on the said date of hearing, the Petitioner appeared through his Counsel and took time for filing Counter and caused delay.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent/Plaintiff further submitted that deliberately delay was caused by the petitioner and he parted with all his valuable assets through his Power of Attorney Agent one M. Elangovan, in order to defeat the claim of the decree-holder. The Execution Petition almost reached its final stage, however, the Petitioner came forward with a spurious Petition to condone the delay of 1581 days i.e. 4 years and 4 months to set aside the ex parte decree, hence, the same is lack of b