1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in I.A.No.74 of 2009 dated 23.09.2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, refusing to condone the delay of 662 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 25.09.2007, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

2. Material on record discloses that the revision petitioner is the second respondent in I.P.No.46 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The first respondent therein, is one M.Subbulakshmi, the debtor. Both the respondents stated supra have remained ex parte. Upon consideration of the materials on record, by order dated 25.09.2007, learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, passed order under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 declaring the first respondent therein, namely, M.Subbulakshmi as an insolvent and directed to vest the petition mentioned properties with the official receiver for management and administration. The second respondent in I.P.No.46 of 1997, Mr. Ramesh Sait, the revision petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.74 of 2009 to condone the delay of 662 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 25.09.2007, contending inter alia that he has purchased the property on 14.08.1997 and that possession was also handed over to him on the same day. According to him, Insolvency Petition said to have been preferred on 17.11.1997, and hence, it is barred by limitation.

3. During the course of hearing of this revision petition, Mr. P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would fairly contend that the registration of sale was done subsequent to 14.08.1997, which was within three months from the date of institution of I.P.No.46 of 1997.

4. The reasons assigned by the second respondent / petitioner in the supporting affidavit in I.A.No.74 of 2009 are that the learned counsel, who appeared for him in I.A.No.46 of 1997 did not inform the result of Insolvency Petition, in which an ex parte decree dated 25.09.2007 has been made. He has further submitted that only when he received the notice in I.A.No.107 of 2008, he came to know that an ex parte decree has been passed in the Insolvency Petition, wherein the principal debtor has been adjudged as insolvent on 25.09.2007. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner / second respondent in I.P.No.46 of 1997 that as he fell ill due to hypertension and diabetics, and hence could not contact his counsel immediately, to file an application to set aside the ex parte decree. Thus, he has explained the reasons for delay of 662 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.09.2007 in I.P.No.46 of 1997.

5. Opposing the said application, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Judgment debtor / creditor denying the averments made in I.A.No.74 of 2009. He has questioned the maintainability of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contending interalia that the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 provides for a remedy under Section 55, in respect of bonafide transaction and therefore, I.A.No.74 of 2009 filed to condone the delay in setting aside the ex parte decree, is not maintainable. The Judgment debtor / creditor has also submitted that the sale effected to the revision petitioner / second respondent in I.P.No.46 of 1997 is sham and nominal and it is to defeat the order of adjudication in I.P.No.46 of 1997. Without prejudice to the above, the respondent / creditor has also opposed the application on the ground that the reasons assigned are not only sufficient, but lacks bonafide. Hence, for the above said reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.74 of 2009.

6. Upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions, the Court below, taking note of Section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 and the reasons assigned for condonation, by observing that the term 'sufficient cause' implies that the cause must be reasonable an