The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient and bonafide reasons for delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order passed by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, made in I.A.No.17205 of 2010 in O.S.No.8631 of 2005, dated 11.09.2012, by allowing the same.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the 1st respondent herein has filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.8631 of 2005 as against the revision petitioner. On the receipt of notice from the trial Court the revision petitioner entered appearance through a counsel. Thereupon the revision petitioner was under an impression that his counsel would take care of the case. That apart the said counsel also filed a suit in O.S.No.8858 of 2005 on behalf of the revision petitioner before the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Therefore, the revision petitioner was under a bonafide belief that his counsel would take care of both the suits. Being so, in the last week of June 2010 the 1st respondent herein illegally trespassed into the suit property, for which the revision petitioner immediately approached his counsel instructing him to get an urgent orders to prevent the 1st respondent s illegal trespass. However, the revision petitioner s counsel by giving an evasive reply that he is not interested in conducting the case any longer, has returned the case bundles to the revision petitioner requesting to engage any other counsel.

3. Thereafter the revision petitioner engaged the present counsel and through him came to know that he suffered an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.8631 of 2005 dated 30.06.2006 for non filing of written statement. It was further found that the revision petitioner s earlier counsel failed to make Copy Application within time, from the date of ex-parte decree. Whereas he applied for copy only in the year 2010 and was issued with the copy of judgment and decree on 05.09.2010.Whereupon the revision petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.17205 of 2010 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1505 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.06.2006. However, without the proper appreciation of the fact that the delay caused in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree is neither willful nor wanton, but the same is because of the failure of the revision petitioner s previous counsel to conduct the case and the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application by order dated 11.09.2012. The said order is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. I heard Mr. R. Manickavel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. M. Christopher, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and there is no representation for the 2nd respondent and perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that having received notice from the trial Court, the revision petitioner entered appearance through a counsel before the Trial Court in O.S. No. 8631 of 2005, who filed one another suit in O.S. No. 8858 of 2005 on behalf of the revision petitioner before the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The revision petitioner was hence under a bonafide belief that his counsel would take care of both the suits. But only in the year 2010 when the revision petitioner urged his counsel for urgent orders to prevent the 1st respondent s illegal trespass and the returning of the case bundles to the revision petitioner by his earlier counsel, requesting to engage some other counsel, the revision petitioner came to know that his earlier counsel failed to defend the suit.

6. The revision petitioner thereafter engaged the present counsel and managed to receive the Judgment and Decree only in the year 2010. Thus he filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1505 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.06.2006. But the same came to be dismissed erroneously on a stringent approa