ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in O.S. No. 189 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Ariyalur dated 15.07.2022.

1. The Fair and Decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in O.S. No. 189 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Ariyalur dated 15.07.2022 is under challenge in the present revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who instituted a suit for Specific Performance in O.S. No. 189 of 2017.

3. The suit decreed in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and admittedly, it is an ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court. The revision petitioner/decree holder filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No. 1 of 2020. The respondent received notice in the Execution Proceedings and thereafter, filed an Interlocutory Application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S. No. 189 of 2017 along with another Interlocutory Application to condone the delay of 1374 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S. No. 189 of 2017.

4. The said Interlocutory Application was contested by the revision petitioner and the Trial Court condoned the delay of 1374 days on the ground that the reasons stated by the respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application would be sufficient to condone the delay of 1374 days. Further, it is observed in the order impugned that the delay was condoned in the interest of justice.

5. Question arises, whether condoning a delay of 1374 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, is to be condoned in the interest of justice or not?

6. It is not in dispute that the Suit was decreed ex-parte. The ex-parte decree was passed, after affording an opportunity to the respondent/defendant. Thus, the respondent/defendant had chosen to remain ex-parte and allowed the Trial Court to pass an ex-parte decree. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/decree holder filed an Execution Proceedings in E.P. No. 1 of 2020.

7. After receiving the notice in the Execution Proceedings, the respondent has chosen to file an Interlocutory Application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in the Suit along with the condone delay application to condone the delay of 1374 days.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent participated in the Execution Proceedings and thereafter, not appeared and thus, the Execution Court proceeded with the Execution Proceedings. Under these circumstances, the Interlocutory Application filed to condone the delay of 1374 days was allowed, against which, the revision petitioner has chosen to file the present Civil Revision Petition.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that such a long delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any acceptable reason. The respondent has stated that he was not well for a period of three (3) years and the said reason stated was not substantiated. The respondent has not filed any medical records or otherwise for the purpose of establishing his illness and the Trial Court, without considering any of these facts, allowed the Interlocutory Application by condoning the delay of 1374 days, which caused prejudice to the interest of the decree holder, since the Execution Proceedings are in progress.

10. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a routine manner. Meagre delay can be condoned by taking a lenient view by the Courts. However, long and enormous delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any valid and acceptable reasons, which must be genuine. While assigning reason for condoning long delay, the person filing a petition should establish the genuinity and the bona-fide, failing which, the Courts would not condone the delay, which would cause prejudice to the interest of the other parties.

11. Prolongation and Protraction of the litigation,