ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.123 of 2018 in O.S.No.161 of 2010, dated 04.02.2021, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

2. The respondent as plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of Rs.7,99,900/- borrowed by the revision petitioner / defendant on 21.05.2007 with interest and costs. The defendant has filed a written statement and was contesting the suit. During trial, the defendant has remained exparte and on that basis, exparte judgment and decree came to be passed on 29.06.2012. Since the judgment debtor / defendant has not paid the decree amount, the decree holder / plaintiff has laid the executive petition. The judgment debtor / defendant, by alleging that he has received the notice in the execution petition in the month of March 2018, filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree dated 29.06.2012 along with an application to condone the delay of 2260 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. The respondent has filed a counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Principal District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 04.02.2021, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the defendant has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The case of the revision petitioner / defendant is that the case was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiff on 29.06.2012, that since there was no representation on the defendant's side, he was called absent and set exparte on 29.06.2012, that the defendant has approached the plaintiff and negotiated, that the plaintiff had agreed for mediation and stated that he will withdraw the suit claim, that since the suit claim was based on cable T.V., connection and sharing for different areas, the respondent / plaintiff promised to withdraw the suit on consulting the other cable T.V., operators, that the petitioner / defendant, believing the words of the respondent / plaintiff, has not proceeded with the suit, that though the exparte decree was passed on 29.06.2012, more than 20 other proceedings were initiated by the respondnet, that the defendant believed that the suit claim was settled upon the promise of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, that the defendant has received notice for execution of the exparte decree during the month of March 2018, that the defendant has immediately approached the plaintiff and enquired about the settlement, but he was stating now and then and avoiding the defendant under some pretext or the other, that the defendant has a good case on trial, that the defendant will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if exparte decree is not set aside, that there occurred a delay of 2260 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree and judgment dated 29.06.2012, that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and that the defendant will be seriously put to loss and hardship, if the delay is not condoned.

4. The defence of the respondent / plaintiff is that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,99,900/- from the plaintiff and executed relevant records, that since the defendant failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of money, that the defendant failed to contest the case and allowed the suit to be decreed exparte, that the defendant, after receiving the notice in execution petition, approached the plaintiff and promised to pay the money, that the defendant has filed the present petition with ulterior motive to drag on the proceedings, that the plaintiff has not agreed to withdraw the suit claim at any point of time, that there was no such mediation in this regard, that the suit claim is not based on the cable T.V., connection, that the plaintiff has not initiated 20 proceedings as mentioned by the defendant, that the