Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 21.07.2005, made in I.A. No. 649 of 2004 in O.S. No. 852 of 2000 on the file of II-Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 852 of 2000 against the petitioner/defendant for specific performance before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she entered in to an agreement with the petitioner/defendant on 09.03.2000, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner/defendant agreed to sell his property for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and the respondent/plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.95,000/- on the said date and the balance sale consideration should be paid within a period of seven months. On receipt of such balance sale consideration, the petitioner/defendant should execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Though the respondent/plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, the petitioner/defendant did not come forward to comply with the terms of the agreement entered into on 09.03.2000. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit exparte on 09.02.2001. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff did not take any step to execute the exparte decree. However, on 18.08.2004, a notice was served on the petitioner/defendant informing her that an exparte decree has been passed against her. Immediately, the petitioner/defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 649 of 2004 in O.S. No. 852 of 2000, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1317 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court, with the present civil revision petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the suit, service of notice was not effected on the petitioner/defendant and the learned Trial Judge has failed to note the same and therefore, it is incorrect to state that the petitioner/defendant has refused to receive summons. Though the plaintiff/respondent had obtained exparte decree in his favour as early as on 09.02.2001, he did not immediately file execution petition to get the sale deed executed, for the reasons best known to him. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only to avoid technical objection, the petitioner has filed the petition to condone the delay of 1317 days. In any event, according to the learned counsel, the trial court should have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to have her cause being decided on merits. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2007(4) CTC 449 (Arun Alexander Lakshman v. A.P. Vedavalli).

6. Contending contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the trial court, while dismissing I.A. No. 649 of 2004, has taken into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has not explained each and every day's delay in her application. Further, it is contended that there is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in dismissing I.A. No.649 of 2004 and the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court, sitting in revisional jurisdiction at this distance of time. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 (Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn.) in support of his contention.

7. I have considered the rival contentions projected by the respective counsel and perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 852 of 2000 has been decreed exparte on 09.02.2001. It is the contention of the petitioner/defendant that she did not receive any notice/summons in the suit and furt