Submission of valid evidence to justify delay in legal proceedings is essential for condonation of such delays.

1. The civil revision petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit filed this civil revision petition against the dismissal order dated 23.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.97 of 2008 in O.S.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvallur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the defendants in the suit are referred as the revision petitioners and the plaintiff in the suit is referred as the respondent hereinafter.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2003 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.03.2003. In the above said suit, the revision petitioners have filed a detailed written statement on 21.01.2004. Since the revision petitioners have not appeared before the trial Court, an exparte decree was passed on 27.10.2004. On the basis of the exparte decree, the respondent herein filed an execution petition in E.P.No.33 of 2006 on 10.03.2006. In the above said execution petition, the revision petitioners filed a vakalath on 16.08.2007.

5. On 20.02.2008, the revision petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.97 of 2008 under S.5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1151 days in filing the petition under O.9 R.13 of Civil Procedure Code. The affidavit filed by the revision petitioners in which it is stated that the first petitioner could not attend the Court on 27.10.2004 as he was bedridden due to jaundice. It is also averred in the affidavit that the respondent herein was negotiating through Mediators to settle the dispute amicably and to receive the amount due to him. But, the respondent filed an execution petition in E.P.No.33 of 2006 and therefore, prayed for to condone the delay of 1151 days in filing the petition under O.9 R.13 C.P.C.

6. In the above said petition, the respondent herein filed a counter, in which, it is stated that the petitioners have not given sufficient reasons for the delay of 1151 days and the respondents has denied the alleged mediation or negotiation. Further, it is stated that the revision petitioners are bound to explain each and every day delay. It is also averred in the counter that the revision petitioners have entered into appearance in the execution proceedings as early as on 19.09.2007. Therefore, this petition is not filed with bona fide intention and the petition filed only to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. The trial Court has considered both sides submissions and finally dismissed the above said petition. Aggrieved over the above said dismissal order of the trial Court, this revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the second petitioner is son of the first petitioner and the first petitioner filed an affidavit on behalf of the second petitioner also. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners further submitted that the revision petitioners are not accepted the validity and genuineness of the agreement of the sale. Since the first revision petitioner was bedridden due to jaundice and also the respondent was negotiating through Mediators to settle the dispute, the delay has been occurred.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the revision petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent