Delay in filing a revision petition may be rejected if not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.

ORDER

A delay of 1978 days in filing the revision is sought to be condoned.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.269 of 2003 and the petitioner also filed his written statement contesting the claim. However, thereafter, due to his ill health, he was not able to appear and contact his Counsel, which resulted in an ex- parte decree being passed on 09.02.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the terms of the agreement, even on a casual glance, would evidence the fact that it was not a genuine transaction and when the valuable right of immovable property of the petitioner is sought to be taken away under the teeth of an ex- parte decree, the learned counsel would contend that he should be given an opportunity to challenge the dismissal of his application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. As regards the reasons for not preferring the revision in time, Mr.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that because of the post Covid pandemic situation that was prevailing and also the age and health complications of the petitioner and financial instability, he was not able to take immediate steps to prefer the revision petition. The learned counsel would therefore seek for an opportunity to be given to the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal of the Section 5 application.

5. Per contra, Mr.Arokiamaniraj, learned counsel for the respondent, would state that after filing the written statement way back in 20.07.2004, the petitioner has not shown any interest to defend the suit and only after granting several adjournments and after lapse of 6 years alone, the suit was decreed on 09.02.2010. The learned counsel would further state that even before the Trial Court, the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 3429 days and rightly, the Trial Court has dismissed IA.No.114 of 2019 by well considered order dated 19.02.2020. The learned counsel would therefore state that the further delay caused in even approaching this Court adds salt to injury and clearly exposes the intention of the petitioner to protract the proceedings, to deprive the respondent of fruits of the decree.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner now seeks to challenge an order dismissing the Section 5 application, in and by which the petitioner sought for condonation of a delay of 3429 days in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte decree. The suit was decreed on 09.02.2010. The petitioner was admittedly served with summons in the suit and he had also filed his written statement as early as on 20.07.2004. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court. Thereafter, he has not appeared, resulting in an ex- parte decree being passed. The attempt to set aside the ex-parte decree was made belatedly, with an inordinate delay of 3429 days, after a lapse of almost 9 years, the said application was dismissed, on due inquiry by the Trial Court on 19.02.2020. At least after the dismissal of the said application. The petitioner could have been diligent in filing the revision before this Court. The petitioner admits to the fact that the order copy was delivered even in September 2020, though made ready on 21.08.2020. But however, casually, the petitioner contends that he came to know about the same only in