KAJA MOHIDEEN Vs. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 18. 8. 2006 in I. A. No. 333 of 2005 in o. S. No. 111 of 1998 passed by the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, villupuram in dismissing the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31. 8. 2000.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I. A. No. 333 of 2005, has inter alia opined that 'as per the version of P. W. 1 he has come to know of the dismissal of the application in october 2001 and the present application has been filed on 04. 4. 2002 after a delay of 186 days and as such, the reason assigned by the petitioner is not an acceptable one and consequently, dismissed the application without costs. '

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the trial Court order in I. A. No. 333 of 2005 is against law and further, the trial Court should not have approached the matter in issue in a technical manner and also it ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence, which has been denied by the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code and in fact, the dismissal of Section 5 application as per Limitation Act has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.