ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 2.2.2012 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.685 of 2010 in O.S.No.267 of 2004, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/defendant, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that I.A.No.685 of 2010 in O.S.No.267 of 2004 was allowed condoning the huge delay of 1370 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C.to get restored the suit, which was dismissed for default, at the trial stage. Counter was filed by the revision petitioner herein/defendant. After hearing both sides, the lower Court thought fit to condone the delay and accordingly, the delay was condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,620/-.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would put forth and set forth his arguement to the effect that a plain reading of the order of the lower Court would show that the lower Court itself was not satisfied with the reasons found set out in the affidavit accompanying the delay petition and in