The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated for condonation of delay. The judgment also highlights the importance of exercising discretion in condoning delay and the need to consider the advantage or disadvantage that may be caused to the other party while condoning the delay.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 324/2018 in O.S. No. 128/1997.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the 4th defendant in the suit. The respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 128/1997 for Declaration and for recovery of possession. The Revision Petitioner filed I.A. No. 324/2018 for condoning the delay of 6018 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The respondent/plaintiff contested the Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner.

3. The trial Court adjudicated the issues and made a finding that the delay of 6018 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree is enormous and revision petitioner has not submitted any documents nor established the delay as genuine. Since the documents are insufficient to form an opinion regarding the genuinity of the enormous delay, the trial Court relied on the judgment of the High Court and arrived a conclusion that the long delay of 6018 days cannot be condoned and consequently, dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that only at the time of Execution Proceedings, the revision petitioner came to know about the ex-parte decree passed. Thereafter, the revision petitioner perused the decree and came to understand that the suit was decreed against her. Summon was not served to the revision petitioner and therefore, she had no opportunity to defend her case before the Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner could not able to defend her case, filed the Interlocutory Application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.11.2001.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is of an opinion that the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the revision petitioner to defend her case. Contrarily, the application was dismissed merely on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any documents. When the petitioner has stated that she had no opportunity to defend the case, since she did not know about the ex-parte decree, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

6. Question arises, whether long delay can be condoned in the absence of any justifiable reasons.

7. The legal principles to be followed for condoning the delay is well settled and this Court also considered the said principles in C.M.P. Nos. 8358 and 8359 of 2018 in A.S. No. 32087 of 2018 dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

“10. In respect of said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Zulaiha Syed Mohideen vs. D. Visalakshi Ammal and Others, MANU/TN/2222/2013, wherein the Court made following observations:

“5. Before going into the merits of the case, first of all, it should be stated that in a case of this nature for condonation of delay, it is well settled that length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay. In other words, for condonation of delay, the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable and explanation should be offered for condonation of the delay. Unless proper explanation is offered, the Courts could not exercise its discretion in the proper perspective to advance substantial justice. It is also settled that when a court has exercised its discretionary power to condone the delay, the appellate Court, in exercise of its discretion, should not ordinarily interfere with such decision unless the discretion exercised is arbitrary and overlooking the interest accrued to another party to the dispute. The appellate Court should also see whether the trial court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter, the advantage or disadvantage that may be caused to the other side while condoning the delay inasmuch as during the interregnum, the other party could have as