The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the context of the petitioner's claim as a bona-fide purchaser and the requirement to provide reasons for the delay.

1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 480 of 2004 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order in I.A. No. 311 of 2013 in O.S. No. 480 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. The case of the petitioner/first defendant is that the above suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 357 of 2000, on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee for declaration of the suit B schedule property as his absolute property and for declaration that "D" Schedule property as public pathway for mandatory injunction to remove the super structure put up by the petitioner/first defendant on the "B" and "D" schedule property, the suit has been filed against the 2nd defendant, who is Mr. Mohan Babu.

3. It is also stated that along with one Jagatheesan, the above 2nd defendant had sold the "B" and "D" schedule property to the petitioner/1st defendant, the said suit in O.S. No. 357 of 2000 was subsequently transferred to the learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, because of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and it was re-numbered as O.S. No. 480 of 2004.

4. The petitioner/first defendant also states that she is the bona-fide purchaser for valid consideration of the said "B" and "D" schedule properties which was purchased through a power of attorney namely Mohan Babu/the 2nd defendant herein and the said Jagatheesan. After purchasing the suit property, the revenue authorities also issued patta in favour of the petitioner in Patta No. 160 and thereafter, the petitioner/first defendant has constructed a house in the "B" and "D" schedule of properties in the year 1997 without any intention to encroach upon anybodies property.

5. The petitioner also states that she was a school teacher and she purchased a property/ land measuring to an extent of 1296 sq. ft. out of her earnings, on receipt of the summon in the said suit, she was contacted by the 2nd respondent who undertook to defend the case and had filed a written statement on behalf of the petitioner/first defendant. But for quite some time and now the second defendant has not contact her, but later on she received a notice in E.P. No. 21 of 2012 that during the months her daughter marriage was undergoing that there was no help from her husband in any of her endeavors. Therefore, as per the advice of her counsel, she filed the set aside application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.11.2004 along with the condonation application in I.A. No. 311 of 2013 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the delay of 783 days, in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.11.2010 and prayed for to allow the condone delay application.

6. On receipt of the notice, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter stating that she denied the entire allegations set out in the affidavit. The first respondent/plaintiff in her counter stated that originally in the year 2000, three I.As. were filed for interim injunction against the defendant, injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 and third I.A. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner also filed his report after noting down the physical features of the suit properties. The petitioner/first defendant alone has appeared through her counsel Mrs. Vasantha Renuka and there was no appearance by the 2nd respondent. Since the 2nd respondent has not appeared in the above suit, a publication of notice was done through newspaper "Malai Murasu" on 27.09.2000 as ordered by the Court and hence the 2nd respondent was called absent and set ex-parte on 21.12.2000. The petitioner/first defendant sought several adjournments for filing her counter and written statement through her counsel and the matter was adjourned to 29.03.2001, 07.08.2001, 18.12.2001, 21.12.2002, 28.06.2002, 04.10.2002 and finally on 06.11.2002. Even on 06.11.2002, the first defendant has not file