The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims and the need for reasonable cause when seeking to condone significant delays in legal proceedings.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to allow this civil revision petition, set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.04.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.307 of 2014 passed by the and direct to number the same. Subordinate Judge, Theni

The present civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant in a suit for specific performance.

2.The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.307 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale with an alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The defendant was set exparte for not filing a written statement and an exparte decree came to be passed on 17.03.2016. The defendant had filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 to condone the delay of 1321 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree.

4.In the condone delay application, the petitioner/defendant had contended that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and she was regularly paying the monthly interest. She being a woman, believed the words of the plaintiff that he would withdraw the suit, when the entire amount is settled. However, the plaintiff has proceeded with an exparte evidence and a decree came to be passed without her knowledge.

5. The defendant had further contended that she was under the bonafide belief that the suit was pending in the month of April 2019, she had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards principal amount to the respondent/plaintiff. Suppressing the said fact, the plaintiff has obtained the exparte decree. The defendant came to know about only when she received notice in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the delay of 1321 days is neither willful nor wanton.

6.The plaintiff had filed a counter contending that the defendant had engaged a counsel and he appeared in the delivery application also. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant had remained exparte even after receiving notice in the execution proceedings filed for execution of sale deed. When the execution proceedings are posted for delivery of property, the present proceedings have been initiated after a period of 5 years. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the said application.

7. The trial Judge after considering the submissions on either side has arrived at a finding that the defendant had failed to file a written statement and she was set exparte and an exparte decree came to be passed on 17.03.2016. The trial Court has refused to accept the reason assigned by the defendant for condoning the delay of more than 4 years. The trial Court further found that the defendant has not produced any document to show that she has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in April 2019. Based upon the said reason, the trial Court has dismissed the application for condoning the delay. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the defendant had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan amount and only as a security of the said loan amount, a sale agreement is entered into. The plaintiff had agreed to settle the issue on payment of loan amount. The defendant has been regularly paying the interest and believing the words of the plaintiff, she had not defended the specific performance suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff even after the exparte decree. Hence, he prayed for condoning the delay and to restore the suit to be decided on merits.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the reasons assigned by the defendant for the huge delay of 4 years is not legally sustainable. The defendant has not produced any document to establish that she had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- after exparte decree. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perus