JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 115 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.474 of 2015 in O.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District dated 01.12.2016.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition filed against the order in I.A.No.474 of 2015 in O.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District dated 01.12.2016.

2. The petitioner is the second defendant in the O.S.No.24 of 2011 and the petitioner in I.A.No.l474 of 2015. The respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.24 of 2011 and are the respondents in I.A.No.1474 of 2021.

3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2011 for declaring the sale deed, dated 18.04.2005 executed by the first respondent infavour of the second respondent as null and void and to declare the deposit of title deeds, dated 20.12.2005 as null and void and to recover possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from altering the existing physical features. Since there was no representation for the defendants, the defendants were set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on 09.03.2012.

4. The petitioner herein filed a petition in I.A.No.474 of 2015 to condone the delay in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 09.03.2012 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. The brief facts in I.A.No.474 of 2015 are as follows:-

The petitioner is the second defendant in the Suit. On behalf of the second defendant, vakalath was filed and time was granted for filing written statement. Due to Spinal card problem, the petitioner could not attend the Court on 23.02.2012 and could not contact his Advocate to give proper instructions to file a written statement. Therefore, the petitioner was set as ex-parte on 09.03.2012. In view of the absence of petitioner on 23.02.2012 and on 09.03.2012, an ex-parte decree was passed. The petitioner has taken steps to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of 1265 days.

6. The brief facts of the counter as follows:-

The defendants 1, 3 and 4 did not file any vakalath and they were set ex-parte even prior to 09.03.2012, only the second defendant has filed a Vakalath. The suit was filed on 03.02.2011, but till 09.03.2012, no counter was filed by the second defendant. The petitioner/second defendant alone has filed a petition to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 have not filed any petition. The first defendant sold the property to the second defendant. The third defendant/bank has collected the loan amount from the second defendant. Hence, the third defendant did not make any appearance. The second defendant was not available in India for the past two years. The alleged B. Kollappan died on 28.07.1991 and there was no possibility for the said B. Kollappan to have executed the sale deed dated 18.04.2005. Immediately after four months, the first defendant has executed a document in favour of the second defendant to obtain loan from the bank. Even if the petition is allowed and even if the ex-parte order is set aside, the petitioner/second defendant will not turn up to the Court. No document was filed to prove the petitioner's illness and the reason for the delay is not properly explained.

7. After hearing both sides, the trial Court had dismissed the petition against the revision petitioner.

8. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the suit was filed on 08.02.2011 by one S. Arumugham Pillai, who is the first respondent herein. The defendants received the summons and appeared on 22.02.2014. The revision petitioner met with an accident in the year 2005 and the revision petitioner was in a very critical unconscious stage as inpatient for a period of more than 3 months. Due to the accident, the revision petitioner sustai