The main legal point established is the court's discretion to condone delay in filing a petition, considering the circumstances and the impact on subsequent purchasers.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 12.09.2019 made in I.A.No.85 of 2010 in O.S.No.112 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner's husband, viz., K.Devarajan is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.112 of 1998, which was filed to pass a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the C,D,E and F portion vacant site mentioned in the schedule and to grant permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant and his men restraining them from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said vacant site and further, a decree of declaration that the impugned sale deed dated 22.01.1996 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is forged, concocted, void ab initio, invalid and unenforceable and not binding upon the plaintiff and as consequence grant a permanent injunction against the defendant. The said was decreed ex-parte on 23.12.2003. The respondent/defendant has filed I.A.No.85 of 2010 to condone the delay of 2155 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said I.A. was allowed on payment of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present Revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the court below failed to see that the respondent has not examined the advocate's clerk, who alleged to have wrongly noted the order and the respondent has not explained each day of delay with sufficient cause. Further, the application for receiving the copy of the order was not filed and it is only a hearsay that the suit was dismissed for default and this piece of evidence is not admissible. That apart, there is no oral or corroborative evidence to support the respondent's illness, hence pleaded to set aside the order passed by the court below.

4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2075 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10965 of 2009) [Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another]

5. Per contra, the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant is that the petitioner/plaintiff prolonged the case till the year 2003. In the year 2003, the respondent suffered with brain problem called Acute Subdural Hematoma Gross Midline Shift due to head injuries. The respondent was admitted and operated on 16.10.2003 and discharged in December, 2003. After recovery in March, 2004, the counsel for the respondent before the court below informed the respondent that the suit was dismissed for default. Since the respondent was in need of money for his treatment, he sold the suit property on 16.05.2006 to one Mohan and the said Mohan had sold the property to another person and so on. Moreover, the petitioner's advocate clerck instead of making a note that the suit was decreed as exparte, he wrongly noted as dismissed for default, therefore, the delay has occured and the same has rightly been condoned by the court below, thereby pleaded to dismiss the present Revision Petition.

6. Besides the above, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following Judgments in support of his case.

(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.1892 of 1990 & 1893 of 1990 [Wander Limited and Another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd.,] reported in CDJ 1990 SC 365.

(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4507 of 2019 @ S.L.P.(c) No.35428 of 2017 [Robin Thapa Vs.Rohit Dora] reported in CDJ 2019 SC 775

(iii) Order of this Court in C.R.P.No.4112 of 2019 [N.Jeyaraj Vs. K.Palanisamy] reported in CDJ 2021 MHC 2769

(iv) Order of this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3463 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 [Mariyaselvam Vs. Hemasanthi & another].

7. Heard