When the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1532 days in presenting the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, it is the duty vested on him to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is not in dispute that except the averment, that in the panchayat, since the respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner assured that he would withdraw the suit, the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent, has kept quite for some time, no other reason is stated by the petitioner/1st defendant/ respondent, for condoning the delay.

JUDGMENT :

R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 28.03.2014 passed in IA No. 260 of 2013 in OS No. 12 of 2007, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur.

1. Aggrieved over the order dated 28.03.2014 made in IA No. 260 of 2013 in OS No. 12 of 2007, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, the plaintiff in the above referred suit, has filed the Civil Revision Petition and prayed to set aside the impugned order, under which, the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, allowed the application filed by the 1st defendant and condoned the delay of 1532 days, in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.08.2008 made in OS No. 12 of 2007.

2. The averments set out by the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent, in support of his condonation petition in IA No. 260 of 2013, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner/1st defendant/respondent is related to the respondent/plaintiff/ revision petitioner, as brother-in-law. The respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed a suit in OS No. 12 of 2007, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, for specific performance, alleging that the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent executed a sale agreement in his favour on 25.05.2005. After receiving the summons, the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent convened a panchayat and in the said panchayat, the respondent/ plaintiff/revision petitioner agreed to withdraw the suit, as the petitioner/1st defendant/ respondent, has not executed any sale agreement in his favour.

(ii) Believing the words of the respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner, the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent did not contest the suit. However, the respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner seems to have taken an ex-parte decree on 12.08.2008. Coming to know the ex-parte decree dated 12.08.2008, the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, with a condonation application in IA No. 260 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 1532 days in filing. The non-appearance of the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent before the trial Court is neither wilful nor wanton. Alongwith the condonation petition, written statement has also been filed.

3. The short facts set out in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner, are as follows:

(i) It is true that respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed a suit for the relief of specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement executed by him. It is not correct to say that a panchayat was convened, in which respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner, agreed to withdraw the suit. There is no bonafide reason to file this petition. The petitioner/1st defendant/respondent entered into a sale agreement with the respondent/ plaintiff/revision petitioner on 25.05.2005 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- and he paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as advance and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- has be paid within 11 months. Since the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent did not comply with the same, respondent/plaintiff/revision petitioner, issued a legal notice dated 15.04.2006.

(ii) After receiving the notice, instead of performing his part of contract, the petitioner/1st defendant/respondent have created a nominal sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant for a value of Rs. 25,200/- on 02.09.2005. Again in turn the 2nd defendant seems to have created another nominal sale deed dated 28.09.2006 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the 3rd defendant. In both the sale deeds the property was shown as vacant site, whereas, a house is situated in the schedule mentioned property.

(iii) Based on the decree dated 12.08.2008, an execution petition in REP No. 197 of 2009, was filed and thereafter, sale deed has also been executed in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff/revision petitioner on 16.03.2011. On the basis of th