ORDER

The first defendant in O.S. No.294 of 2017, aggrieved by dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2021 which was filed for condonation of delay of 655 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte decree, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Sriram Narayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.A.Syed Shuhaibb, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Valliappan, inviting my attention to the relief sought for in the plaint and the judgment passed in the suit, would contend that the decree is a nullity, since the same does not conform to Order XX, Rule 4 CPC . The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the first respondent/plaintiff has relied on only photo copies of documents and not even the originals have been exhibited before the Trial Court. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel would fortify his contentions stating the judgment is a nullity and therefore the delay has to be condoned and in support of his arguments, he would place reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. V