- (1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order, dated 29.11.2007 passed in I.A.No.711 of 2007 in O.S.No.1129 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirupur.
(2.) THE application in I.A.No.711 of 2007 had been filed by the petitioner / defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 646 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree passed against the revision petitioner, which was dismissed by the court below. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / defendant, the respondent / plaintiff filed the suit, based on a promissory note said to have been executed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner / defendant, though no such amount was borrowed by the petitioner and executed any promissory note, as alleged by the respondent. According to the revision petitioner, he came to know about the exparte decree only on 02.01.2007. Subsequently, he filed the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay along with the petitioner to set aside the exparte decree. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner / defendant was attending some other case in the same court, relating to the petitioner, however, he fail to appear in this suit and therefore, there is no bonafide reason available for the revision petitioner to file a petition to set aside the exparte decree with the petition to condone the delay.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in the other suit, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and hence, he had no personal knowledge about the case filed against the petitioner and the exparte decree passed against him and therefore, the delay of 646 days is neither wilful nor wanton. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent cited the decision in Sundar Gnanaolivu vs. Rajendran Gnanavolivu, reported in (2003 (1) LW 585), wherein this Court has held that there was no bonafide reason for condoning the delay and that the revision petitioner does not come to court with clean hands. In this regard, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of this case is different from the other case cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. There is an inordinate delay of 646 days and the same has not been explained satisfactorily by the petitioner.;