ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.370 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2011.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent instituted a Suit for Specific Performance.

3. The revision petitioner/defendant remained absent and the Suit decreed ex-parte. Based on the ex-parte decree, the respondent/decree holder filed Execution Proceedings. After a lapse of about eight (8) years, the revision petitioner/defendant filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.370 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2011 to condone the delay of 2755 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.

4. The Trial Court considered the grounds raised by the revision petitioner/ defendant to condone the delay of 2755 days and dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the revision petitioner/defendant has not explained the delay nor adduced any material evidence to substantiate the same.

5. The revision petitioner/defendant in her affidavit, has stated that she has never received summons in the Suit, whereas the revision petitioner/ defendant in her proof of affidavit dated 15.02.2019, has stated that the respondent/plaintiff has obtained an ex-parte decree, as if summon served to her after forging her signature.

6. The Trial Court made a finding that if at all the contention of the revision petitioner/ defendant is true, she should have taken appropriate legal action against the respondent/ plaintiff during the relevant point of time. However, she had not taken any such action and filed Interlocutory Application to condone the delay of 2755 days and not produced any material evidence to substantiate the grounds stated in the Interlocutory Application to condone the delay. Therefore, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

7. The revision petitioner/defendant has not raised any other ground before this Court for the purpose of considering the petition. Delay of 2755 days cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any valid reason.

8. The principles regarding the condonation of delay with reference to the judgements of the Constitutional Courts are elaborately considered by this Court in C.M.P.Nos.8358 & 8359 of 2018 in AS.SR.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 & Others reported in 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 asserted a vested right. With this background, let us analyse the merits of the rival contentions urged by the counsel for both sides.

6 to 11.......

12. On behalf of the revision petitioner, several decisions were cited.