Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the Sub-Court, Mettur, in I.A.No.243 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2003, this civil revision petition is filed by the landlord. 2. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the necessary and germane facts for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.106 of 2003 seeking the following main relief: - to direct the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff towards the damages and compensation. (extracted as such) (ii) It so happened that the revision petitioner/defendant, after filing the written statement, failed to participate in the proceedings; whereupon ex-parte judgment and decree were passed. (iii) Subsequently, E.P.was filed by the respondent herein. On receipt of E.P. notice only, the revision petitioner herein came to know about the ex-parte decree having been passed as against her. Whereupon I.A.No.243 of 2008 was filed by her under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay of 1092 days condoned in filing the application to get set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that on 8.11.2005, when the suit was listed for trial, she could not appear due to her ill-health and subsequently, owing to communication gap between her lawyer and herself, the matter could not be pursued. (iv) The trial Court, after hearing both sides dismissed the said application. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would submit his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The petitioner herein being a Doctor was not wilful and wanton in absenting herself from the Court, but due to abnormal circumstances, as found set out in the affidavit, she could not appear. (ii) The ex-parte judgment passed itself is faulty for the reason that without assigning any reason whatsoever such a judgment emerged. (iii) The revision petitioner/doctor was not at fault and no damages also could be claimed as against her as the law is well settled that simply because the respondent herein gave birth to a child, even after sterilization operation, she cannot claim damages only on that ground. 5. Heard both sides. 6. (iii) The revision petitioner/doctor was not at fault and no damages also could be claimed as against her as the law is well settled that simply because the respondent herein gave birth to a child, even after sterilization operation, she cannot claim damages only on that ground. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any justification for condoning the delay of 1092 days in filing the application to get set aside the ex-parte decree? 7. At this juncture, I fumigate my mind with the following precedents of the Honble Apex Court. (i) (2009)2 SCC 703 (Asit Kumar Kar vs. State of West Bengal and others). An excerpt from it would run thus: "4. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence." (ii) (2010) 4 SCC 785 [Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers], certain excerpts from it would run thus: "10. .........The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad. 14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients: firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders." A mere poring over and perusal of the above excerpts including the whole judgments would reveal that without hearing the parties concerned if any order is passed it cannot be presumed that the order was passed after hearing the party who was absent. In the absence of the appellant, if an order is passed, then it should be taken that the appeal is dismissed for default and even if an order is passed without hearing the respondent but on hearing the appellant only, then it could only be taken as an exparte one. 8. Here, undoubtedly the delay is 1092 days, which is huge. It has to be seen as to whether there is any adequate explanation for the said delay. No doubt, the explanation furnished by the revision petitioner herein, who is not less than a Doctor, would be to the effect that there was communication gap virtually between her advocate and herself in knowing the hearing date. Perhaps, on 8.11.2005, the day on which the matter was listed, she might not be in a position to attend, but there is nothing to indicate and exemplify as to what prevented her from attending visiting the Court subsequently and gathering particulars from the Court office itself as to what happened to her case. As such, there is negligence on the part of the revision petitioner herein, which cannot be denied. However, one other important point, which strikes my mind is that a bare perusal of the ex-parte judgment would show that it is far from satisfactory. 9. This Courts Circular in ROC No.195/76.Con.B2 dated 22nd November 1977 would clearly point out that the ex-parte order does not mean that it should be a one sided order. Even after recording ex-parte evidence the Court can very well dismiss the very petitioners case. It is not that simply because the respondent remained ex-parte, the petition has to be allowed after formally recording evidence. Even after recording ex-parte evidence the Court can very well dismiss the very petitioners case. It is not that simply because the respondent remained ex-parte, the petition has to be allowed after formally recording evidence. Despite non contest on the part of the respondent, the petitioner should satisfy the Court about the merit of his petition and the Court is bound to state reasons for allowing the petition ex-parte in favour of the petitioner. But in this case, it is obvious and axiomatic that such a procedure has not been adhered to by the Court, warranting interference by this Court in revision. 10. As such, it is clear that even after the defendant is set ex-parte, the Court is not expected to simply pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Here this is a suit for damages and the law on the point is now well settled that the Court is enjoined to look into the fact as to whether there was actually negligence on the part of the Doctor in conducting the operation and mere averring before this Court that even after sterilization operation, the person underwent that operation has delivered a child is not a ground for blindly awarding damages as it has been done in this case. In the suit, the respondent herein claimed for Rs.3 lakhs as damages. Without any discussion, and without giving any finding, simply such compensation was awarded and as such, in stricto senso, the said judgment and decree has to be considered as honest in the eye of law and on that ground also the judgment and decree are likely to be set aside. However, because there are laches on the part of the revision petitioner herein in appearing before the Court and take steps to get the ex-parte decree set aside at the earliest point of time, I would like to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) payable by the revision petitioner herein to the respondent herein before the end of August 2010. If there is any default in paying the cost, then this order will not ensure to the benefit of the revision petitioner herein and the revision petition shall stand dismissed. If there is any default in paying the cost, then this order will not ensure to the benefit of the revision petitioner herein and the revision petition shall stand dismissed. On complying with this order, it shall be taken that the I.A.No.243 of 2008 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is deemed to have been allowed and the Court is enjoined to number the I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and dispose it of within a period of one week thereafter taking into consideration the observations made by me in this order relating to the defects in the exparte judgment and decree and in the event of setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, the matter shall be disposed of within six months thereafter. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.