The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reasons for delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree do not automatically impact the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court emphasized the need for different considerations for condoning delay in each case, based on the differences in the statutory provisions governing the two proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in C.R.P(NPD)No.4287 of 2017: Civil Revision petitions filed under Sec.115 of C.P.C against the order dated 27.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.131 of 2015 in UN.A.S.Sr.No.6971 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram.)

1. Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, she has preferred the present revision.

2. According to her, the respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession by demolishing the offending structure put up by the petitioner and for permanent injunction. Petitioner filed written statement, but remained absent during trial. She was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on 07.04.2010. On receiving notice in the execution petition filed by the respondent for demolishing the house of the petitioner, she became aware of the subsequent developments in the suit and immediately filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay. The condone delay petition was dismissed and the same was confirmed by the High Court in a Civil Revision preferred by her, not being satisfied with the reasons. Therefore, she preferred an appeal against the ex-parte decree u/s. 96 of C.P.C along with a petition to condone the delay of 1860 days in filing the appeal. The said petition was also dismissed in view of the dismissal of condone delay petition filed to set aside the ex-parte decree. Hence, she preferred the above revision.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was undergoing severe mental agony due to the matrimonial problems faced by her daughter, who was given in marriage at Singapore. Due to strained relationship and since she was in family way her daughter came down to India. She had the responsibility to set right the matrimonial relationship and for that purpose, she frequented to Singapore. Since the daughter underwent cesarean operation during the child birth, she had to spend her time in prenatal and post natal care. In that melle, she could not pay proper attention to the litigation. Even though, she had given the bonafide and sufficient reasons, they were not accepted and therefore, having no other alternative preferred the statutory appeal. The learned Senior counsel would vehemently contend that refusal to condone the delay to set aside the ex-parte decree, will not disentitle the petitioner from filing an appeal. The appeal being a statutory remedy, the petitioner cannot be denied of her valuable right. The petition to set aside ex-parte decree and filing of an appeal stand on two different fields and dismissal of a petition to condone the delay in setting aside ex-parte decree will not affect the appeal proceedings as they are independent. Further the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court does not conform to the mandatory requirement and devoid of reasons. On the face of it, it is illegal and liable to be set aside. The Lower Appellate Court also dismissed the petition to condone the delay in preferring the appeal in view of dismissal of the earlier petition filed in a different proceeding, without considering it on merits and without assigning valid reasons. In support of his contention he would rely on the following judgments.

1. Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More and others, 2019 (5) CTC 351

2. N.Maheswari vs. Mariappan and others, 2013(2) CTC 388

3. G.K.Suganya and 2 others vs. N.P.Sekar and other, 2019(5) CTC 673

4. Countering the submissions, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the reasons adduced for condoning the delay shall show sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court and it should be bonafide. This Court considered the very same reasons for the very same period and held it insufficient and unsatisfactory. Even according to the petitioner-s own pleadings, there is no explanation for not taking action between 2010 and