The court emphasized that delay condonation should not be granted when there is deliberate inaction and malafide intention, and substantial justice should not prejudice the opposing party.

The defendant in O.S.No.3490 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.3490 of 2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,58,000/-on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had also given her property measuring 1620 sq.ft., comprised in Natham Survey No.16-1/1, 1.19 situated at Jeyankondam Village, as Collateral security. On 20.09.2006, the petitioner/defendant entered appearance and failed to file a petition seeking leave to defend. Though the suit was adjourned twice to enable the petitioner to file a petition for leave to defend as no petition was filed and there was no representation for the petitioner, exparte decree was passed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Execution Petition to transfer the decree from the City Civil Court, Chennai to the District Court, Perambalur. E.P.No.85 of 2007 was taken by the District Court, Perambalur as per the transmit order dated 29.03.2007.

3. On 09.08.2007, notice was ordered to the petitioner herein in the said E.P. On 18.12.2007, the petitioner had entered appearance through her counsel in E.P.No.85 of 2007 and sought time for filing counter. Time was being periodically extended by adjourning the matter 14 times between 18.12.2007 and 20.11.2008. But the petitioner failed to file counter. Hence, on 20.11.2008, as no payment was made and the petitioner was absent, attachment was ordered and on 10.12.2008, the immovable property was attached. On 17.12.2008, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2204 of 2008 before the trial court to condone the delay of 786 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order dated 20.09.2006. Thereafter, on 23.12.2008, attachment had been recorded and time was given till 23.01.2009 for filing sale papers. On 22.01.2009, sale papers were filed. On 27.01.2009, sale notice was ordered. On 04.09.2009, sale notice was served and on 07.09.2009, inspite of service of sale notice, the petitioner/judgment debtor failed to be present before court and he was set exparte. Sale proclamation was ordered on 14.09.2009. On 14.09.2009, proclamation of sale was issued for a value of Rs.7,00,000/-. On 20.01.2010, sale was conducted. On 22.01.2010, I.A.No.22048 of 2008 was dismissed by the trial court. On 27.01.2010, one Ajmal Hussain purchased the property in auction for a sum of Rs.7,00,100/-and deposited 1/4th of the sale amount and poundage of Rs.21,033/-was affixed. The balance of 1/4th of the sale amount of Rs.1,53,992/- was also deposited and time was given for depositing the balance 3/4th sale amount. In the mean time, the petitioner filed the above Civil Revision Petition and obtained stay.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, it has been stated that since the counsel had not informed her about the passing of the exparte decree and she came to know that on 15.12.2008, about attachment proceedings against her property and hence, the petition to set aside the exparte decree was not filed in time. The said petition was contested by the respondent contending that it is false to say that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the exparte decree only after she contacted her counsel. It is further contended that pursuant to the notice ordered on 09.08.2007 in E.P.No.85 of 2007, notice was served on the petitioner and in fact the petitioner had appeared before the execution court on 18.12.2007 itself and had taken 14 adjournments to file counter. When she subsequently did not file counter, on 10.12.2008, immovable property was attached and thereafter on 17.12.2008, the petition to set aside the exparte decree has been filed.

5. Considering the rival contentions, the court below has not accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner and by further pointing