Equity aids only the vigilant and not the one who sleeps over their right.

1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit filed in the year 2011 seeking for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 12.03.2008, in which, she was set ex-parte on 20.04.2012. The suit came to be decreed on 18.06.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner herein was set ex-parte in the execution proceedings also. On 11.11.2016, the petitioner had filed an application to condone of delay of 1579 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.41 of 2011. The present civil revision petition is against the order dismissing her application seeking for condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

2. Heard Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.Bharath Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the petitioner's health condition although she had produced the medical certificate of the Government Hospital which evidences she had been suffering from spinal cord pain for the past six years. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner herein has a valid and arguable defence in the suit and that the plaintiff is trying to grab a valuable property for a very meager sale consideration. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the trial Court ought to have taken a lenient view and condoned the delay. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner herein had filed her written statement along with the application to condone the delay and in view of the same, her conduct should be taken into account and the delay requires to be condoned. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court to substantiate that, delay in these circumstances should be condoned and a lenient view should be taken.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent countered the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and submitted that the delay was inordinate, which does not deserve any consideration for interference. According to him, the petitioner was given ample opportunities in the suit as well as in the execution proceedings and though notice was served on her, she had not chosen to file her written statement in the suit and her non appearance in the execution proceedings is fatal. According to him, there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court. The medical record produced also does not explain the reasons for the inordinate delay and therefore sought for dismissal of the civil revision petition.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. The delay in the instant case is 1579 days which can be termed as an inordinate delay. What requires to be seen in the case of this nature is as to whether the petitioner had properly explained each and every day's delay. Before venturing into the explanation adduced by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to look into the conduct of the petitioner through out the proceedings before the trial Court, Execution Courts and ascertain as to whether she had been vigilant through out the entire course of the proceedings.

7. The suit came to be filed in the year 2011 and the petitioner herein had entered her appearance through her counsel on 16.11.2011. Though ample opportunities was extended to the petitioner herein to file her written statement, she had failed to do so and ultimately, she was set ex-parte on 20.04.2012. After recording the evidence of the plaintiff, the suit came to be decreed on 18.06.2012. After about two years from the decree, an Execution Petition was filed on 12.03.2014. The petitioner herein had received notice in the Execution Petition and owing to her non prosecution, she was set ex-parte in the execution proceedings also. Thereafter, steps were taken for registration of the sale deed and during the course of such registration, an application for amendment was made by the decree holder in which notice came to