Judgment :- This revision has arisen from an order of the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram, made in I.A.No.38 of 2004 seeking condonation of delay of 1669 days in making an application to set aside an ex-parte order passed against the revision petitioner/defendant. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3.It was originally a suit for easementary rights filed by the respondent herein before the District Munsiff, Dharmapuri. Subsequently, it was transferred to the District Munsiff, Pennagaram, and taken on file in O.S.No.255/99. Due to the non-appearance of the revision petitioner/defendant, an ex-parte order came to be passed on 27. 1999. An application to set aside the ex-parte order was filed in the year 2004. While doing so, there was a delay of 1669 days. In order to condone the delay, the instant application in I.A.No.38/2004 was filed. The only reason that was adduced in the course of the application was that she had no knowledge of the transfer of the proceedings from the Court of the District Munsiff, Dharmapuri, to the Court of the District Munsiff, Pennagaram, and under the circumstances, the delay had occasioned, and hence, it was to be condoned. This contention was rejected by the lower Court. Hence, this revision before this Court. 4.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondent on the above contentions. 5.It is not in controversy that the suit was originally taken on file at Dharmapuri and subsequently, transferred to Pennagaram and assigned as O.S.No.255/99. It is pertinent to point out that after the ex-parte order was passed on 27. 1999, E.P. was filed in 2002. In the execution proceedings, the same Counsel for the defendant appeared and sought for time on number of occasions. After a period of two years there from, the application was filed in 2004 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order passed in 1999, and that too on the ground that the transfer of the proceedings was not known to the plaintiff, which was nothing but an utter falsehood. It is pertinent to point out that the same Counsel who appeared for the party, continued to appear in the execution proceedings. The execution proceedings was also pending for a period of two years. Thereafter, the instant application has been filed. Apart from that, the delay of 1669 days is huge, inordinate and inexcusable. It is pertinent to point out that the same Counsel who appeared for the party, continued to appear in the execution proceedings. The execution proceedings was also pending for a period of two years. Thereafter, the instant application has been filed. Apart from that, the delay of 1669 days is huge, inordinate and inexcusable. It is well settled proposition of law that in a case of condonation of delay, the Court must approach liberally; but, at the same time, the caution is made by the Apex Court that in a given case, no equity should be applied in condonation of delay, and if done so, that would be nothing but extension of period of limitation. Thus, in the instant case, as stated above, the delay is huge and inordinate which remained unexplained. The lower Court was perfectly correct in dismissing the application. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is sustained. 6.In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.