D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and Final Order dated 8.12.2009 passed in I.A. No. 387 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet. The Respondent herein filed the Suit in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 before the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, for the relief of Specific Performance and other reliefs. The said Suit was set ex-parte on 3.9.2002. The Respondent filed E.P. No. 52 of 2009 before the said Court for execution of the same.

2. On receipt of Notice in E.P. No. 52 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 from the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, the Revision Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 387 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 to condone the delay of 2400 days in filing the Petition to set aside the ex-parte Decree in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 passed against the Revision Petitioner.

3. By Order dated 8.12.2009, the Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 387 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 on the ground that in the Execution proceedings, he entered appearance on 28.4.2009 but he filed the instant Interlocutory Application only on 5.9.2009 and no proper explanation was given for four months' delay. Against this Order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Defendant/Revision Petitioner.

4. Pending Civil Revision Petition, the sole Petitioner died and his Legal Representatives were brought on record by Order of this Court dated 23.11.2011 passed in M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2011 in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Mr. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners assailing the reasons stated by the Trial Court for the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application No. 387 of 2009 would submit that though the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents had no objection to condone the delay, the Trial Court without considering the same, dismissed the Interlocutory Application, which needs interference at the hands of this Court.

6. Mr. R. Nalliyappan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that the Revision Petitioner/Defendant filed I.A. No. 387 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 under Section 5of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2400 days in filing the Petition to set aside the ex-parte Decree passed against the Petitioner in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 on 3.9.2002. The Trial Court found that in the Execution Petition, the Revision Petitioner entered appearance on 28.4.2009 but he filed the present Interlocutory Application only on 5.9.2009 and there was delay of four months in between and same was not properly explained. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

7. Heard Mr. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners and Mr. R. Nalliyappan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the records.

8. The Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed in I.A. No. 387 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2400 days in filing the Petition to set aside the ex-parte Decree passed in O.S. No. 164 of 2001 against the Petitioner on 3.9.2002. The Trial Court found that in the Execution Petition, the Revision Petitioner entered appearance on 28.4.2009 but he filed the present Interlocutory Application only on 5.9.2009 and there was delay of four months in between and same was not properly explained.

9. According to Mr. Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners, the Summons of the Suit has not been received by the First Defendant/Revision Petitioner. Per contra, according to Mr. R. Nalliyappan, learned Counsel for the Respondent, summons was served on the First Defendant/Revision Petitioner. Therefore, the factum of the said position has to be verified only from the original records in the Suit. By Order dated 11.4