Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 210. 2008 in I.A. No.1146 of 2008 in O.S. No.18 of 2006 passed by the Learned Principle District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 736 days in filing the Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code application to set aside the exparte decree dated 26.06.2006. 2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.1146 of 2008 dated 210. 2008 has come to the conclusion that the reason assigned by the revision petitioner that he has gone to Kerala after filing of the main suit against him and after that he returned to his place one and half months prior to the filing of the present application and later has come to know about the present exparte decree against him are contrary to facts and also further taken note of the dismissal of E.A. No.121 of 2008 in E.P. No.3 of 3007 and inasmuch as the revision petitioner has refused to receive the sale notice as evidenced by Ex.R3 the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and consequently dismissed the application with costs. 3. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A. No.1146 of 2008 praying to condone the delay of 736 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 26.06.2006 and in fact the revision petitioner has left the village on account of her vocation and worked as coolie in Nedumparai Estate, Kerala and she has fallen sick and an opportunity to contest the main suit ought have been given by the trial Court and as a matter of fact no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/decree holder in allowing the Section 5 application and also for a small sum of Rs.39,692.50/- and the respondent/Decree holder has taken advantage of the exparte decree and is endeavouring to knock away with the only property of the revision petitioner and added further, the trial Court ought to have adopted a liberal view rather than denying the rights of the revision petitioner to contest the suit on merits and looking at from any angle, the order of the trial Court is an unjust and illegal one which needs to be set at right and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition to prevent an aberration of justice. 4. In the affidavit in I.A.No.1146 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner it is averred inter-alia that she has gone to Kerala for coolie work in Nedumparai Estate and she has fallen sick and therefore she has been aware of the details of the case and that the case has been decided exparte on 26.06.2006, and since she has returned from Kerala to her village presently, after receipt of the sale notice she has come to know of the passing of an exparte decree and as such she has not been negligent in a wantonly manner and that she has got good case on merits and therefore has prayed for allowing of the application in the matter in issue. 5. 5. In the counter filed by the respondent/decree holder it is mentioned that the respondent/plaintiff has filed E.P.No.3 of 2007 after obtaining the decree and a stay application filed by the revision petitioner in not bringing the petitioners property to sale has been dismissed and the matter has been adjourned for confirming the sale and these details are known to the revision petitioner and that a view to deprive the respondent/Decree holder from enjoying the fruits of decree, the application has been projected by the revision petitioner and it is not correct to state that the petitioner has gone to Kerala at Nedumparai Estate in connection with a coolie job etc., and that the application lacks bonafides. 6. In support of the contention that a liberal view will have to be adopted by a Court of law while dealing with the Section 5 application under Limitation Act 1963, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relies on a decision of this Court Ravi Enterprises and Ors. Vs. Indian Bank and Ors. III (2008) BC 67 wherein it is among other things held that "application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 should be dealt with liberally and not mechanically". 7. He also cites the decision of this Court T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., Authorized dealer for Pal Peugot Ltd. Vs. S. Raghunathan (MANU/TN/9309/2007) equivalent citation (2008)2MLJ848 wherein at para 8 it is held as follows: "As far as the present case is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the term Sufficient Cause, must be viewed liberally and taking a liberal view in the matter, this Court is satisfied with the reason furnished in I.A. No.184 of 2003 in O.S. No.558 of 1999 for the condonation of delay of 539 days and allows the Civil Revision Petition with a direction that the Civil Revision Petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai, within two weeks from the date of this order and produce a receipt before the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, failing which the Civil Revision Petition will stand dismissed automatically without any further reference. However, there shall be no orders as to costs." 8. Yet another decision S.S. Jain Singh (Mambalam) Trust rep by its Secretary Mr. J. Kalyan Chand Vs. Arulmighu Baskyakara Adichenna, Kesava Perumal Thirukoil, rep. However, there shall be no orders as to costs." 8. Yet another decision S.S. Jain Singh (Mambalam) Trust rep by its Secretary Mr. J. Kalyan Chand Vs. Arulmighu Baskyakara Adichenna, Kesava Perumal Thirukoil, rep. By its Executive Officer, Arulmighu Kothandaramar Temple MANU/TN/0068/2009 is brought to the notice of this Court wherein it is among other things held that "the litigant cannot be held to suffer for the failure of his advocate to inform the hearing date of the case to him, no doubt there is a long delay of 2183 days in preferring an application to set aside the exparte decree, which in my opinion is to be compensated as fairly conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and in fine the civil revision petition is allowed on condition the revision petitioner pays a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the other side within 2 weeks from today, failing which the revision shall deemed to have been dismissed etc." 9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that the revision petitioner has not stated the bonafide reasons in I.A.No.1146 of 2008 and that she has received the notice in E.P.No.3 of 2007 on 09.02.2007 and therefore she has knowledge about the passing of the decree on 26.06.2006 and as a matter of fact the trial Court has passed a considered order in dismissing the Section 5 application and therefore the same need not be disturbed by this Court in the interest of justice. 10. It is quite evident from the perusal of Ex.R1 sale notice dated 18.07.2008 in R.E.P No.3 of 2007 in O.S No.18 of 2006 on the file of trial Court that the revision petitioner has not received the copy of notice and the execution petition on 09.02.2007 showing the date of hearing as 21.02.2009 in the presence of two witnesses: (1) Madesh – V.A.O and (2) Raman and the same has been returned to the trial Court on 12.02.2007. Moreover, in Ex.R2 certified copy of R.E.P No. 3 of 2007 in O.S. No.18 of 2006 the endorsement of the executing Court on 21.02.2007 is to the effect that "Court notice served. Post notice not yet returned. Presiding Officer is on leave/O.D. and the matter has been reposted to 14.03.2007". On 14.03.2007 it is mentioned that "Court notice already served. Post notice not yet returned. Respondent called absent. Post notice not yet returned. Presiding Officer is on leave/O.D. and the matter has been reposted to 14.03.2007". On 14.03.2007 it is mentioned that "Court notice already served. Post notice not yet returned. Respondent called absent. No representation and order to set exparte and attach by 18.04.2007". Furthermore, in Ex.R2 certified copy of R.E.P No. 3 of 2007 on 08.02.2008 it is endorsed that "Court notice and post notice returned as respondent refused. Hearing on 21.01.2008. Sufficient service caused. Respondent called absent, no representation, set exparte, by attach sale of proclamation by 06.03.2008 etc." On 14.03.2008 the terms have been settled and upset price have been fixed at Rs.30,000/- and the matter has been posted to 04.03.2008 for proclaim and sell and further hearing has been posted to 09.06.2008 and Batta forms are directed to be filed in a week and on 09.06.2008 the property has been sold in Court auction for Rs.40,000/- one fourth sale amount for Rs.10,000/-poundage for Rs.1230/- and a sum of Rs.8770/- deposited into Court in B.R. No.26 of 2008 dated 05.06.2008 and the three fourth sale amount and sale certified amount have been directed to be deposited by 17.06.2008 and on 17.06.2008 three fourth sale amount and sale certified amount for Rs.32,400/- deposited into Court in B.R.No.27 of 2008 dated 12.06.2008 and for confirmation of sale posted to 18.08.2008. Ex.R4 is the certified copy of endorsement made in proclamation of sale by public auction under Order 21 Rule 66 of C.P.C wherein it is endorsed that since the revision petitioner has refused to receive the notice copy and the same has been affixed at the outer door of her residence (in the presence of witnesses (1) Madesh – V.A.O and (2) M. Varadhan). Significantly, the Bailiff on 21.01.2008 has made an endorsement that he has returned the process to the executing Court stating that the copy of the notice on 12.01.2008 has been shown to the revision petitioner on being identified by V.A.O and the copy has been read over to the revision petitioner since she has refused to receive, he has affixed the notice on the outer door of her residence and obtained the signature of witness thereto. 11. At this stage this Court recalls the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in Mahabit Singh Vs. Subhash and others (2008) 1 MLJ 1214 (SC) which runs thus: "Admittedly, an exparte decree was passed. 11. At this stage this Court recalls the observation of the Honble Supreme Court in Mahabit Singh Vs. Subhash and others (2008) 1 MLJ 1214 (SC) which runs thus: "Admittedly, an exparte decree was passed. Defendant for getting it set aside was required to establish that either no summons was served on him or he had sufficient cause for remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing the suit exparte. Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for 30 days time for filing such an application. Even assuming for the sake of argument that no proper step was taken by the appellant herein for service of summons upon the respondent and/or the service of summons was irregular, evidently, it was for the defendant-respondent to establish as to when he came to know about the passing of the exparte decree. Even in his cross-examination, the first respondent has categorically admitted that he had approached the appellant herein for not giving effect thereto one and half year prior to filing of the application, and, thus, he must be deemed to have knowledge about passing of the said exparte decree. The period of limitation would, thus, be reckoned from that day. As the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed one and a half year after the first respondent came to know about passing of the exparte decree in the suit, the said application evidently was barred by limitation." 12. Also in A.P Ramasamy Vs. Dhanalakshmi 2004-1-L.W.406 wherein it is laid down as follows: "A perusal of the particulars for the entire period would make it clear that the conduct of the petitioner was consistently indifferent. In fact, though he has shifted his residence in May 2000, he has not cared to give the change of address to his lawyer and he has approached the Advocate only after two years, namely in 2002. He though it fit to file the application to condone the delay only after receiving notice in the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for passing final decree. Thus, it is clear that the reasons for the delay have to be held as unreasonable and the same would not show that he is bonafide." 13. He though it fit to file the application to condone the delay only after receiving notice in the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for passing final decree. Thus, it is clear that the reasons for the delay have to be held as unreasonable and the same would not show that he is bonafide." 13. It is brought to the notice of this Court on the side of the respondent/decree holder that the third party has purchased the property and since the sale has taken place the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner/defendant has become an in fructuous one. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that this Court has enough powers to test the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court in Section 5 application. 14. It is pertinent for this Court to point out that the revision petitioner as P.W.1 in her cross-examination has categorically deposed that she has gone to Kerala in the year 2006 and three months have passed by ever since she returned from Kerala and that she is not aware of the month in the year 2006 she has been to Kerala and she has come to know of the passing of the exparte decree approximately one and half months before. It is to be noted that the revision petitioner before the trial Court has been cross-examined as P.W.1 on 05.08.2008. 15. It is to be noted that the revision petitioner before the trial Court has been cross-examined as P.W.1 on 05.08.2008. 15. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions though the revision petitioner has filed I.A. No.1146 of 2008 on 02.06.2008 before the trial Court inter-alia averring that she has gone to Nedumparai Estate, Kerala in connection with her coolie work and that she has fallen sick and that she has come to know of passing of the exparte decree presently just one and half months before are certainly contrary to the contents of Ex.R1 certified copy of sale notice wherein it is specifically mentioned that she has received the notice copy and the petition copy in the presence of witnesses thereto and added further the said notice itself indicates the hearing of the E.P No.3 of 2007 as 21.02.2007 and therefore the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner are not a sufficient or an acceptable good cause in the manner known to law and suffice it for this Court to point out an application under Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1863 cannot be allowed in a cavelier fashion when the application suffers from bonafides and consequently, the revision fails. 16. In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed. The order of the trial Court in I.A. No.1146 of 2008 in O.S.No.18 of 2006 dated 210. 2008 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, related M.P. No.1 of 2008 is also closed.