ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.09.2022 in E.A.No.58 of 2020 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur and consequently allow the E.A.No.58 of 2020 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012.

The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.09.2022 passed in E.A.No.58 of 2020 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012.

2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor / tenant and the respondent is the decree holder / landlord, who filed R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012 for eviction on the ground for owner’s occupation. The Rent Controller allowed the R.C.O.P and ordered for eviction. The revision petitioner preferred an Appeal in R.C.A.No.37 of 2021, which is pending. Meanwhile, the decree holder filed E.P.No.34 of 2019 and the Execution Court allowed the execution petition and delivery was ordered.

3. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that she had not participated in the execution proceedings, as summons were not served to her in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the Execution Petition was allowed ex-parte on 19.12.2019 and delivery was ordered in the year 2020. Subsequently, the revision petitioner / tenant filed E.A.No.58 of 2020 to condone the delay of 312 days in E.P.No.34 of 2019, which was adjudicated by the Trial Court elaborately.

4. The findings of the Trial Court reveal that delivery was ordered in the main Execution Petition on 28.02.2020. The revision petitioner / judgment debtor was set ex-parte on 19.12.2019 itself. However, the revision petitioner / judgment debtor kept quiet for a long time and allowed the Execution Court to pass order on delivery and at a later point of time came out with a petition to condone the delay of 312 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.12.2019. Even after the ex-parte order, the main Execution Petition was allowed and delivery was ordered on 28.02.2020.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the E.A Court found that the revision petitioner / tenant has not come out with convincing reasons for the purpose of condoning the delay of 312 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.12.2019.

6. Long delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any acceptable reasons. Reasons are life-line for condoning enormous delay in filing petitions. Thus, Court cannot condone such long delay in a mechanical manner. Law of Limitation is substantive. Condonation of delay is exceptional. Thus, based on insufficient or in-genuine reasons, such long delay cannot be condoned by the Courts, which would cause prejudice to the interest to the other parties.

7. In the present case, the respondent / landlord filed a petition, which was allowed and the Appeal filed by the revision petitioner is pending and there is no stay. Meanwhile, the decree holder filed an execution petition and the revision petitioner / tenant was set ex-parte on 19.12.2019 and delivery was ordered in the main execution petition on 28.02.2020. Even after the delivery of possession the respondent / landlord is unable to take possession of the property from the revision petitioner tenant, which is unfortunate. The infective implementation of the decree will shake the faith of the system and the Courts are expected to enforce the decrees passed vigilantly and effectively.

8. The revision petitioner / tenant initiated steps to set aside the ex-parte order with a delay of 312 days and the Trial Court found that there is no material evidence or documents to substantiate the reasons and such unexplained delay cannot be condoned and consequently, the petition was dismissed.

9. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the E.A. Court and thus, the same is to be confirmed. Accordingly, the fair and de