Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated, 111. 2007 made in I.A.No.1166 of 2007 in O.S.No.218 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. 2. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner / plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking bare injunction restraining the first respondent herein from alienating the property to the second respondent or any other person. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. There is a delay of 1657 days in filing a petition to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore the suit. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances dismissed the petition, as there is no merits. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner herein submitted that the revision petitioner herein filed the suit, since the first respondent, his father had attempted to sell away his private property as well as the joint family property. He has admitted that the revision petitioner has also filed a suit for partition, which is pending for disposal. 4. So far as the alleged self-acquired property of the revision petitioner is concerned, there could be no legal apprehension for the revision petitioner, since the first respondent cannot sell the property of the revision petitioner. As far as the joint family property is concerned, admittedly, partition suit is pending and further, there is no declaratory prayer in the plaint, as per the copy available in the typed set and the suit has been filed only for bare injunction. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the inordinate delay of 1657 days was caused only due to the default of the lower court counsel, for which he cited the following decisions : 1. Muthammal vs. Gurunathan, 1999 (1) CTC 73 2. Balakrishnan vs. Krishnamurthy, 1999 (1) MLJ (SC) 114 6. Admittedly, no complaint was lodged by the revision petitioner against the lower court counsel before the State Bar Council. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is the duty of the revision petitioner to explain satisfactory reason, for each day of delay before the court to condone the same. In the instant case, except the bald allegation against the trial court counsel, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of 1657 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore the suit. In the instant case, except the bald allegation against the trial court counsel, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of 1657 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore the suit. Hence, I confirm the finding of the trial court that the revision petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 1657 days for filing the application, seeking restoration of the suit and further, the suit for partition filed by the revision petitioner herein is also pending before the trial court. Therefore, the petitioner will not be prejudiced in any way, on account of the dismissal of the petition. As the inordinate delay of 1657 days has not been satisfactorily explained, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below to be interfered with and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.