explanation given for delay not sufficient to condone the delay.

1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners herein filed the suit, O.S. No. 637 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, Periyar District for declaration of their title. The said suit was decreed exparte on 24.7.1991. The respondent filed an application, I.A. No. 902 of 1993 on 31.5.1993 for condoning the delay of 646 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. The lower court has allowed the application by order dated 16.2.1996 as against which the present Revision has been filed. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the suit has been decreed exparte on 24.7.1991 and this was communicated to the respondent by the counsel for the petitioner as early as 18.5.1992. The acknowledgments by the Collector and Tahsildar for the receipt of the notice sent by the petitioners had been marked as Ex.P-1 and P-2. The lower Court, without considering the same, has proceeded on the basis that by virtue of the exparte decree, the individuals are not put to loss but, only the public are put to loss and this view of the lower Court may not be correct. When the respondent had been duly communicated and having got the knowledge about the exparte decree one year earlier to the filing of the application, it is their duty to explain the delay properly. In the absence of any explanation, the delay, especially when the delay is an inordinate one, cannot be condoned. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate has reiterated what is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay before the court below and further contended that neither the intimation of the Govt. Pleader nor the notices sent by the counsel for the respondent had been placed before the Collector, as there was change of the Clerks very often.

3. I have carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. In the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of the application for condoning the delay, it is stated as follows: —

“The then Government Pleader had intimated my subordinates about passing the exparte decree somehow or other the communications were not reached in the concerned file and therefore no steps could be taken within the stipulated time for filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. The section clerks are also changed from time to time. Due to the said and other similar contributing factors and administrative delay the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree has been filed with a delay of 646 days. The said delay is not wanton. The delay is beyond the control of the stale who is the petitioner herein. Unless the said delay is condoned the State will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. It will be a loss to the society as a whole.”

From the above, it is very clear that the Government pleader has intimated the Authorities about the exparte decree. But, however, the same has not been brought to the notice of the petitioners by pulling up the concerned file. Even assuming that the intimation sent by the Government Pleader has not been brought to the notice of the Collector, still the counsel for the petitioners herein has sent the notice on 16.5.1992, in which it has been categorically staled about the exparte decree in the suit. The Collector as well as the Tahsildar had received the same on 18.5.1992. If the said notice has not been brought to the notice of the Collector, at least the Tahsildar, who is the responsible Officer of the Government, could have met the Collector and discussed the matter or brought it to the notice of the Collector. The explanation given by the respondent that due to change of clerks, the intimation had not been put up in the file cannot be accepted. In the absence of any details or particulars with regard to live period during which the staff were changed or transferred, it cannot be the case that the staff have been changed for the entire one year