S THANGAVELAMMAL Vs. K KARUPANAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 18.04.2007, made in I.A.No.214 of 2006 in O.S.No.263 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai, the present civil revision petition has been laid.

(2.) It is found that petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree in O.S.No.263 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai. Seeking to set aside the said ex parte decree passed against her, the petitioner has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 1650 days in preferring the said application, the petitioner has preferred an application in I.A.No.214 of 2006 to condone the said delay. The reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are that she having lost her husband and the respondent having given all sorts of trouble and harassment to her, she has been forced to leave her property and thereafter, taken care of by a Women Wing at Madurai and meanwhile, the respondent had initiated the suit proceedings against her and on account of her old age and illiteracy and as no one was available to take care of her interest, she was unable to concentrate in the case and not received any summons or notice in the execution proceedings and thereafter, with the help of the well wishers, she had engaged a counsel and come forward with an application to set aside the ex parte order passed in the execution proceedings and the same is pending and subsequently, she has come forward with the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her in the suit and as there is a delay in filing the said application, according to the petitioner, the present application has been laid to condone the delay.

(3.) The above said application has been stoutly resisted by the respondent contending that the reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are unacceptable and false and the case of the petitioner that on account of ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the respondent, she has been forced to leave her property is false and her further case that she has been taken care of by a Women Wing at Madurai and on account of her old age and illiteracy, she was unable to prosecute the suit proceedings and that she had not been served with notice in the execution proceedings and only thereafter, with the help of well-wishers, she had engaged a counsel and filed an application in the execution proceedings etc., are all false and made for the purpose of the case. It is further stated that the petitioner has not given any valid and acceptable cause for the condonation of the delay. It is further stated that as seen from the affidavit of the petitioner, she is in the care and custody of Arul Jothi Jewellers and at the instigation of the said Jewellers, the present application has been laid and the reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are false and unacceptable and despite the knowledge about the proceedings, the petitioner did not contest the suit and hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed.