Judgment :- Challenge is made to the order of dismissal passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in I.A.No.638 of 2003 seeking to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree in O.S.No.398 of 1999, a suit for specific performance. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. It is the admitted position that after filing of the suit, the revision petitioner, the sole defendant appeared through his counsel. But, he did not file a written statement. Hence, he was set exparte on 8. 2002. Thereafter an application has been filed for setting aside the exparte decree and while doing so, a delay of 162 days has occasioned. In order to condone the delay, the instant application in I.A.No.638 of 2003 was filed. The lower Court held that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and hence dismissed the said application. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case, since he was unwell, he was not able to give instructions to his counsel and hence written statement was not filed in time. Hence, he was set exparte and while filing an application for setting aside the exparte decree, the delay of 162 days has occasioned. If the order passed in the application for exparte decree is set aside, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent . 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above contentions. 6. It is the admitted position that the suit was filed for specific performance and an exparte decree came to be passed for non-filing of written statement and it is true that an application has been filed to set aside the exparte decree and in filing such an application, the delay of 162 days had occasioned. After looking into the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner/defendant to put forth his case, that too in a suit for specific performance and in a case like this, the Court should adopt liberal approach in dealing with the petition for condonation of delay. After looking into the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner/defendant to put forth his case, that too in a suit for specific performance and in a case like this, the Court should adopt liberal approach in dealing with the petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the order in question is set aside by awarding cost of Rs.2,000/-payable by the petitioner to the counsel for the respondent within a period of four weeks and failing which, the Civil Revision Petition shall automatically dismissed. On compliance of the said condition, the lower court is directed to take up the matter on file and proceed in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation, the Civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, MP.No.1 of 2007 is closed.