The main legal point established is that a petitioner must provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act and must come to the court with clean hands.

1. The present civil revision petition is filed challenging the order in rejecting the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner before this Court as the defendant in O.S.No2239 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore filed the said application in I.A.No.2291 of 2012, seeking to condone the delay of 882 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree which came to be passed by the trial Court on 21.12.2009. The respondent herein as the plaintiff filed the above said suit against the petitioner seeking for delivery of vacant possession and for directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.10,800/- and for directing the defendant to pay the future rent of Rs.600/- per month from the date of the suit till the date, he vacates and hand over possession. The said suit came to be decreed exparte on 21.12.2009. Thus, the above application was filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 11.02.2013, by holding that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.

3. The petitioner as the defendant has suffered an exparte decree on 21.12.2009. He filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 882 days in filing a set aside petition. An affidavit was filed in support of the said application. A perusal of the same would show that he received the suit summon and however inadvertently, he misplaced the notice and therefore, he could not appear before the court on 21.12.2009. By saying so at paragraph No.4 in the affidavit, the petitioner has stated in paragraph No.3 that he had no knowledge about the suit proceedings. He further stated that he was under the treatment for viral fever in the month of December 2009. He further stated that when he was served with notice in the execution proceedings, he was shocked and surprised to know about the exparte decree.

4. A perusal of the affidavit, thus, would show that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. At one paragraph, he admits the receipt of suit notice and at another paragraph, states that he was not having knowledge about the suit proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is not placing the correct facts before the Court. Further, he stated that he was under the treatment for viral fever in the month of December 2009. No medical Certificate was produced before the Court and nobody was examined in support of the said contention. Needless to say that mere filing of an affidavit with some reasons will not entitle a person to get the relief unless such averment is proved by adducing material evidence before the court especially, when the same are denied and disputed by the other side.

5. In this case, the petitioner has not examined anybody nor marked any documents. On the other hand, the petitioner admitted the receipt of the notice in the suit and however, he has stated that he could not appear before the court only because he misplaced the notice. These reasons are totally unbelievable in view of the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner at paragraph No.3 where he gives a different reason. Therefore, there is absolutely no bonafide on the part of the petitioner to file the said application. The court below has rightly considered and rejected the same. The order of the court below, passed by exercising its discretion, does not warrant any interference by this court as I find no infirmity or irregularity therein. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.