The court emphasized the importance of properly explaining the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree and considered the opportunities available to the defendants to contest the case.

1. This civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam in I.A.No.358/2004 in O.S.No.129/1998.

2. The revision petitioner as plaintiff, had filed the above said suit for recovery of the advance amount paid by him to the respondents herein under a sale agreement dated 13.10.1997 with interest and also for damages for breach of contract. The respondents, though entered appearance initially engaging a counsel, thereafter, failed to contest the case and thus, they suffered an ex-parte decree dated 25.11.1999. An un-numbered application came to be filed by the respondents herein to set aside the ex-parte decree along with an application in I.A.No.358/2004 to condone the delay of 1185 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. It was contended therein that only on 22.03.2003, the respondents herein came to know that the ex-parte decree dated 25.11.1999 had been passed against them.

3. The application was resisted by the revision petitioner herein refuting the contentions raised by the respondents herein in the affidavit filed in support of the applications and contending that the respondents herein, besides having been emboldened to sell the property to a third party even while an order of attachment was in force, did have every opportunity to contest the case as they did receive notice at various stages in the execution proceedings. It was also contended by the revision petitioner herein that suppressing the receipt of notice and their appearance in the execution proceedings, they had come forward with the applications making false and untenable averments in the supporting affidavit and prayed for the dismissal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 holding that the inordinate delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was not properly explained.

4. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, after hearing both sides, passed an order on 22.08.2006 allowing I.A.No.358/2004 holding that the reasons assigned by the respondents herein were acceptable.

5. The above said order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, is impugned on the ground that the learned trial judge, who chose to elaborately narrate the averments of the respondents herein and the counter averments of the revision petitioner herein, passed a crippled one sentence order, which could be even stated to be a non-speaking order. It is also contended that the learned trial judge did not advert to various averments made in the counter statement of the revision petitioner, which resulted in the failure on the part of the trial court to assign reasons for the supposed satisfaction of the trial court regarding reasons assigned by the respondents herein. Based on the said grounds, the revision petitioner has sought for an order to revise the order of the learned trial judge dated 22.08.2006 and to set aside the same and consequently for the dismissal of I.A.No.358/2004.

6. Notice before admission was given and the respondents are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The grounds of revision, copy of the order of the trial court, documents produced in the form of typed set of papers and additional typed set of papers are also perused.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the impugned order of the learned trial judge is a crippled one without assigning any reason for the stated satisfaction of the court below regarding the reasons assigned by the respondents herein for their belated approach to the court below for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against them in 1999. Though the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, took pain