ORDER :

(Heard through Video Conferencing)

1. The defendants are the revision petitioners before this Court challenging the order, dated 10.03.2015, passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, dismissing the application filed by the defendants for condoning the delay of 1755 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

2. The plaintiff/respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.71 of 2007 to declare a Sale Deed dated 12.09.1996 as null and void and for an injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The 2nd petitioner had entered appearance and filed a written statement refuting the claim of the respondent. However, though written statement was filed, the petitioners had not participated in the trial of the suit and therefore, an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 17.08.2009. The petitioners have thereafter, filed an application for condoning the delay of 1755 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. In the said application, the reasons given were that the 2nd petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and his wife, the 1st petitioner was taking care of him and thereafter, both of them had gone to Kerala to eke out their livelihood and when they returned to their native village, they had contacted their counsel, who had informed the ex-parte decree. Therefore, they had come forward with the said application.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent contending that the reasons given are absolutely false and bereft of details and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

5. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, by his order dated 10.03.2015, was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that the delay had not been properly explained and sufficient cause had not been shown. Challenging the said order, the defendants are before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.

7. It is no doubt true that the reason for the delay has not been sufficiently explained. However, a mere reading of the judgment, which is extracted hereinbelow, compels this Court not only to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, but also to set aside the ex-parte decree:-

“ jhth tHf;fhdJ. tHf;Fiur; brhj;ijg;

bghWj;J 12/09/96k; njjpa fpiua Mtzk; null

and void vd mwptpf;ff;nfhhpa[k;. tHf;Fiur;

brhj;Jf;fspy; gpujpthjpfnsh. mtuJ tif

Ml;fnsh. Vb$z;Lfnsh. vt;tpj ,ila{Wk;

bra;af;TlhJ vd;W epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lisg;

gpwg;gpf;ff; nfhhpa[k;. ,t;tHf;fpd; bryt[j;

bjhiffis thjpf;F. gpujpthjpfis

brYj;jf;nfhhpa[k;. kw;Wk; ,t;tHf;fpd;

cz;ikf;Fk;. jd;ikf;Fk; Vw;g ePjpkd;wk;

fUJk; ,ju ghpfhu';fis thjpf;F tH';fp

jPh;g;g[k;. jPh;g;ghiza[k; bra;af;nfhhp

thjpahy; ,t;tHf;Fj; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/

,t;tHf;fpy; gpujpthjpfs; miHf;fg;gl;L

M$uhfhj fhuzj;jpdhYk;. gpujpthjpfis

xUjiyg;gl;rkhf;fg;gl;l epiyapy; thjp M$uhfp

th/rh/M/1 Kjy; th/rh/M/5 tiuapyhd

Mtz';fs; jhf;fy; bra;J tHf;F bka;g;gpf;fg;gl;l

epiyapy; ,t;tHf;fpy; thjp nfhhpago. tHf;Fiur;

brhj;ijg; bghWj;J 12/09/96k; njjpa fpiua

Mtzk; null and void vd mwptpj;J

cj;jputplg;gl;Lk;. tHf;Fiur; brhj;jJf;fspy;

gpujpthjpfnsh. mtuJ tif Ml;fnsh.

Vb$z;Lfnsh. vt;tpj ,ila{Wk; bra;af;TlhJ

vd;W epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpj;J

cj;jputplg;gl;Lk; kw;Wk; ,t;tHf;fpd; bryt[j;

bjhifa[ld; thjpf;F jPh;g;g[k;. jPh;g;ghiza[k; bra;J

cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/”

8. A mere perusal of the above referred judgment, which is the entire judgment, would clearly show the total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Judge. Though written statement has been filed, the judgment does not mention the issues that have been framed and also the reasons as to how the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the Sale Deed dated 12.09.1996 is null and void. In the written statement, that has been filed by the 2nd petitioner, a plea of limitation has been taken. A Sale Deed of the year 1996 is sought to be declared as null and vo