The court may condone delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree if justified by valid reasons and supported by an undertaking for expeditious trial.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order and Decreetal Order dated 14.9.2010 passed in I.A.No.6125 of 2010 in O.S.No.1285 of 1988 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Mr.B.T.Seshadri, learned counsel appears for the respondent. By consent, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.B.T.Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The suit is of the year 1988 filed for specific performance. There was an earlier round of litigation which was taken up by way of appeal and remanded. The suit was taken up for retrial on remand and posted on 19.2.2009 for appearance of the revision petitioners/defendants. Unfortunately, on 19.2.2009 an untoward incident happened in the High Court premises and consequently, there was continuous non function of Courts for a long period of time. After the Court work resumed, the matter was listed and adjourned on several occasions. It was posted on 30.3.2009 on which date, an ex parte decree was passed, as the revision petitioners/defendants did not attend the Court in person or through counsel.

5. Thereafter, the application I.A.No.6125 of 2010 has been filed to condone the delay of 286 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.3.2009. The I.A.No.6125 of 2010 was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the revision petitioners/defendants are in the habit of seeking adjournments without any just or reasonable cause. There are several juniors to the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants, but they deliberately failed to appear and plead the case. The revision petitioners/defendants' counsel have been taking adjournments on one or other reason and successfully dragged the case for more than 22 years. The I.A.No.6125 of 2010 was seriously contested by the respondent/plaintiff stating that grave prejudice and hardship is being caused to the respondent/plaintiff. The Court below considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that prima facie the delay has not been properly explained and dismissed the application.

6. The suit O.S.No.1285 of 1988 was posted during the period when an unprecedented event happened in the High Court Premises. Thereafter, Courts resumed work slowly and the case was listed on 30.3.2009. On that date, the revision petitioners/defendants were set ex parte. The reason given by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 3 for the delay to set aside the ex parte decree by pointing out the omission on the part of Advocate Mr.L.Arul Selvam, junior of Mr.K.S.Natarajan, deserves to be accepted as the counsel on records accepts the mix up of bundle. On the date when the suit was decreed ex parte there appears to be some bona fide in the difficulty expressed by the revision petitioners for the reasons mentioned above. The delay thereafter has been explained to some extent by the revision petitioners and Mr.Sai Krishnan, counsel appearing before this Court to day and he stated that he and his senior Mr.K.S.Natarajan take responsibility for the mistake in the placement of the suit bundle. The fault, therefore, is both on the party as well as the counsels on record.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/ defendants 1 and 3 pleaded for leniency in the matter. Mr.Sai Krishnan, the counsel on record for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 3 stated that this Court should condone the mistake committed by the Advocate office which caused the delay and restore the suit. Revision Petitioners unconditionally undertake to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis and would not cause any further hardship and prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. The counsel also undertook on the same lines.

8. Mr.B.T.Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff while strongly opposing the revision petition, howe