ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of the learned Sub Court, Poonamallee passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in LAOP No.95 of 2011 dated 14.10.2022.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order passed by the Sub-Court, Poonamallee in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in LAOP No. 95 of 2011 dated 14.10.2022.

2. The revision petitioner is the 2nd claimant in LAOP No.95 of 2011.

3. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner was set ex-parte on 09.12.2013 in LAOP proceedings. Though, ample opportunities were provided to the revision petitioner, he had failed to contest the LAOP and even after passing of an ex-parte order, the revision petitioner had not chosen to file any petition to set aside the ex-parte order during the years 2013 and 2014.

4. After a lapse of four (4) years from the date of ex-parte order, the revision petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2018 to condone the delay of 1382 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.02.2014 in L.A.O.P.No.95 of 2011.

5. The reasons stated by the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application is that he was suffering from Kidney problem. Except the said general reason, the revision petitioner had not furnished any documents or medical records to establish the genuinity of the medical treatments undergone by him.

6. The Trial Court considered the grounds raised by the revision petitioner and made a finding that the revision petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to file his claim statement on various dates ranging from 30.11.2012, 08.03.2013, 16.04.2013, 17.06.2013, 12.07.2013, 05.10.2013, 08.01.2013 and finally, he was set ex-parte on 09.12.2013.

7. Even if the revision petitioner had fallen sick during December 2013, he could have utilised the opportunity granted by the Trial Court for filing counter/ reply statement. Contrarily, he slept over the opportunities provided to him and allowed the Trial Court to pass an ex-parte order on 09.12.2013. Even, the Trial Court examined the medical reason stated by the revision petitioner and found that the revision petitioner had not submitted any documents or acceptable evidences for the purpose of establishing the grounds stated by him that he was suffering from Kidney problem.

8. In the absence of any acceptable reasons, the Courts would not condone the long delay in a mechanical manner. The Trial Court found that the blatant reason assigned by the revision petitioner was not substantiated through medical documents and in the absence of any such document to establish the reason, the Court cannot condone enormous delay, which would cause prejudice to the other party.

9. 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 discretio