ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / plaintiff as against the order condoning the delay of 1416 days in filing appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the suit.

2.The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the present civil revision petition, are as follows:-

The revision petitioner had filed the suit in O.S.No.28 of 2005 for specific performance of contract in respect of the sale agreement executed by the deceased Janarthanan, who is the husband of the first respondents and father of the second and third

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondents. The suit was decreed in ex parte on 03.11.2008 and the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree with the delay of 86 days, but the same was returned pointing out certain defects and for representing the same, there was a delay of one year and four months. Though the Court below condoned the representation delay, it has dismissed the application for delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree as there is no sufficient reason assigned for condoning the same. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents 1 to 3 have approached this Court by way of a civil revision petition and this Court has allowed the said civil revision petition on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the revision petitioner on or before 21.11.2012, in default the revision petition shall stand dismissed automatically. But, on request of the respondents 1 to 3, vide order dated 23.11.2012, this Court has extended the time till 30.11.2012. Even then, the respondents did not comply with the order of this Court. Seeking further extension of time, the respondents 1 to 3 had filed an interim application in the said civil revision petition and the same was, subsequently, withdrawn by the respondents 1 to 3. Again, the respondents 1 to 3 filed another interim application seeking extension of time to comply with the said conditional order passed in the civil revision petition, but the same was dismissed on merits. During the interregnum period, the sale was executed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 had filed I.A.No.43 of 2013 seeking condonation of delay of 1419 days in filing appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the suit and the same was allowed by the first appellate Court, against which the present civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner /

plaintiff.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that knowing fully well that an exparte order passed against her, the respondents 1 to 3 has contested the execution petition and after some time, she left the execution petition for ex parte and file a petition for setting aside the exparte order and the same was dismissed, against which she had filed a civil revision petition and the same was allowed on terms. But, the respondents 1 to 3 purposefully dragged on the matter for about one year and failed to comply with the conditional order and thereafter, without assigning any valid reason, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed an application seeking to condone the delay of 1419 days in filing the appeal. The first appellate Court, without considering the fact that the respondents 1 to 3 have purposefully dragged on the matter and they did not assign any valid reason, has erroneously condoned the enormous delay and therefore, the said order may be set aside. Thus, he prayed to allow this civil revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that due to financial crisis and ill-health, the respondents could not comply with the order passed in the earlier civil revision petition and file the appeal in time and that the delay is not a willful one. He would further submit that in order to give one more https://hcoseprvpicoesr.etcouurnts.igotv.yin/,hc setrvhicees/ first appellate Court below has condoned the delay and the same need not be interfered with. Thus, he prayed for dismissal o