Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 19. 2004 made in I.A.No.2138 of 2004 in unnumbered Original Suit by the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi allowing the said I.A., filed by the plaintiff, respondent herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2017 days in re-presenting the plaint. 2. The respondent herein presented the plaint against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,700/= with future interest. He also filed I.A.No:2138 of 2004 along with the Plaint to condone the delay of 2017 days in re-presenting the plaint. The plaintiff/respondent contended that on the earlier occasion, the plaint was returned on 112. 1998 to comply with the defects noted there under within seven days thereafter, but due to the shifting of the residence of his counsel, the plaint papers got misplaced and could not be traced and only recently the same was found and therefore such a huge delay of 2017 days has occurred. 3. The revision petitioner/defendant resisted the said application stating that the plaint papers have been misplaced and only several years thereafter the same has been found by the counsel is not believable, besides denying the very execution of the promissory note. 4. The learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi on a consideration of the pleadings, oral evidence and the submissions of the learned counsel appeared on either side, allowed the Section 5 application reserving the defendants right to waive interest for the delay of 2017 days in representing plaint. Aggrieved against the said decision of the trial Judge, this revision is filed by the defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that while taking out the Section 5 petition to condone the delay of 2017 days the plaintiff has not even filed any affidavit and only the Advocate Clerk has sworn to the affidavit which is not sufficient to grant the relief. Further, in his evidence P.W.2 had clearly stated that the counsel shifted his office premises just prior to his giving evidence which is contradictory to the pleading in the affidavit. Further, in his evidence P.W.2 had clearly stated that the counsel shifted his office premises just prior to his giving evidence which is contradictory to the pleading in the affidavit. Further, the delay of more than six years to trace a bundle which is alleged to be mixed up with old case papers is not believable and even if each bundle in the counsels office had been checked one by one it would not have taken several years. Further, there is no documentary proof for such shifting of the counsels office from one place to another place. This is bolstered by the fact that the notice issued subsequent to the proceedings to the respondents counsel was received by him in the same old address. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in such circumstances, the trial court ought to have refrained from showing indulgence to the plaintiff. 6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is well founded in his submissions. It is clear that the very reason for such long delay has not even been substantiated by any documentary evidence and it is alleged that the subsequent notice has been received by the counsel in the same address. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to any indulgence from the court and the trial court ought to have dismissed the said application as the court cannot be expected to exercise equitable discretion in favour of a person who has not come to court with clean hands. 7. In the result, this CRP is allowed, setting aside the order dated 19. 2004 made in I.A.No.2138 of 2004 in unnumbered Original Suit by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. No costs.