The need for valid reasons for delay in condonation petitions and the lack of bona fides in explanations for delay influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 25.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.16250 of 2017 in O.S.No.379 of 2010

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 25.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.16250 of 2017 in O.S.No.379 of 2010 by raising various grounds.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit and the suit is filed by the respondents / plaintiffs for partition and separate possesion of 1/3 share of the 1st respondent / plaintiff about 274 sq.ft., of the suit property and separate possession of 1/3 share of the 2nd respondent/plaintiff about 274 sq.ft., of suit property hereto by metes and bounds including superstructure and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and their men from alinenating and encumbering the suit schedule property. Resisting the same, written statement was filed by the petitioners / defendants to the suit denying all the averments made by the respondents / plaintiffs in the suit.

3. Pending adjudication of the suit, the petitioners / defendants have filed I.A.No.16250 of 2017 seeking the following prayers:

(i) to condone the delay of 1905 days in payment of Rs.400/- passed in I.A.No.18342 of 2010 in O.S.No.379 of 2010

(ii) to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the decree dated 10.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.18342 of 2010 in O.S.No.379 of 2010

(iii) to set aside the exparte preliminary decree dated 10.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.379 of 2010.

4. The petitioners/defendants in the I.A. No. 16250 of 2017 had averred that after filing the written statement, the petitioners used to meet the advocate and inturn, he informed that the case is pending and the petitioners had believed the said advocate. Further, the petitioners have not even explained about the contents of the affidavit while signing the same and the petitioners were asked to receive the affidavit and petition in I.A.No.11832 of 2017 in the above suit seeking for passing final decree. Thereafter, another advocate had informed to the petitioners that already preliminary decree was passed as early as on 10.08.2012 and yet another application was filed by the earlier advocate with a prayer to set aside the exparte order dated 18.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.18342 of 2010. The said petition was allowed with a condition on payment of Rs.400/- towards cost and the said information was also not infomed by the Advocate. Hence a preliminary decree was passed on 10.08.2012.

5. The petitioners / defendants had further stated in the I.A. No. 16250 of 2017 that either non payment of Rs.400/- towards condition imposed in I.A.No.18342 of 2010 as well as the absence on 18.08.2010 in the above suit is neither wilful nor wanton and the petitioners are not aware of the exparte decree passed. Further, the prayer in the suit cannot be allowed in the eye of law and the petitioners are willing to deposit any amount, as fixed by the court below and also ready to get along with the suit on day to-day basis. Moreover, the petitioners are uneducated and not having knowledge of court proceedings, hence prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the exparte decree and also to condone the delay of 1905 days in filing the petition.

6. Per contra, a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating that the suit is for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction, wherein preliminary decree was passed on 10.08.2012 and on the basis of preliminary decree, final decree application I.A.No.11833 of 2017 was filed and at this stage, the petitioners have come forward with the application to condone the delay of 1905 days, which is nothing but abnormal and throwing blame on their erstwhile consels. Further, the petitioners are not diligent in attending t