JUDGMENT :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A.No.129 of 2009 in O.S.No.656 of 2002, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Erode. 2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Defendant in O.SNo.656 of 2002, seeking a money decree for a sum of `1,23,200/- to be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant with interest and cost and the Suit was decreed ex parte. The Revision Petitioner herein as Defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.129 of 2010 seeking an order to condone the delay of 1581 days in representing the Application to set aside the ex parte decree. 3. In the Counter Affidavit, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the Petitioner had filed the above Application after four years and four months to condone the delay in representing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree, only with a view to protract the proceeding and that there was no Affidavit filed in support of the Petition filed by him. Instead of filing Affidavit, only an attested statement was filed. Further, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the averments of the Petitioner made in the Petition are false. It is seen that the Petitioner has stated that he had misplaced his bundle, hence the Suit was decreed on 08.09.2004. Pursuant to the decree, Execution Petition in E.P.No.87 of 2005 was filed, wherein the Petitioner herein appeared through his Counsel for the hearing on 11.07.2005 and took time for filing his Counter. The E.P was posted on several hearings, however, the Petitioner did not file his Counter in the said Execution Petition and the Petitioner was set ex parte on 29.11.2005. 4. Then the Petitioner filed an Execution Application in E.A.No.442 of 2005 to set aside the said ex parte order passed in E.P.No.87 of 2005 along with his Counter. Even in the Counter Statement, the Petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor had not referred anything about the Petition filed by him to set aside the ex parte decree. The said E.A.No. 442 of 2005 was allowed only on payment of cost and only after enquiry, the Court below ordered arrested of the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.87 of 2005. The First Respondent herein specifically stated in the Counter filed before the Court below that the Petitioner had evaded arrest and that he could not be arrested. The said E.A.No. 442 of 2005 was allowed only on payment of cost and only after enquiry, the Court below ordered arrested of the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.87 of 2005. The First Respondent herein specifically stated in the Counter filed before the Court below that the Petitioner had evaded arrest and that he could not be arrested. Hence, the First Respondent did not press the E.P.No.87 of 2005 before the Court below and the same was dismissed. 5. Subsequently, the First Respondent filed the Execution Petition in E.P. No.297 of 2006, in order to bring the Petitioner’s property for sale to realize the amount payable under the decree. However, the Petitioner evaded service of notice, hence, substituted service was ordered and paper publication was effected. In spite of the said fact the Petitioner failed to appear, hence, he was set ex parte on 15.02.2007 in the Execution Proceeding. Pursuant to the order of adjudication, the Petitioner’s property was brought for court auction sale on 27.09.2007 and after the sale, the same was confirmed on 10.12.2007 and Sale Certificate was also issued by the Court below. Subsequently, the auction purchaser filed E.A. No.277 of 2008 for delivery of possession of the property. In the said E.A. No.277 of 2008, the Petitioner was served with a notice for the hearing dated 23.10.2008 and on the said date of hearing, the Petitioner appeared through his Counsel and took time for filing Counter and caused delay. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent/Plaintiff further submitted that deliberately delay was caused by the petitioner and he parted with all his valuable assets through his Power of Attorney Agent one M. Elangovan, in order to defeat the claim of the decree-holder. The Execution Petition almost reached its final stage, however, the Petitioner came forward with a spurious Petition to condone the delay of 1581 days i.e. 4 years and 4 months to set aside the ex parte decree, hence, the same is lack of bona fides and liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in case of delay in representing a Petition, notice need not be sent to the Respondents. 7. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in case of delay in representing a Petition, notice need not be sent to the Respondents. According to him, Petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. was filed in time, however, due to some defects, the Petition was ordered to be returned for compliance, which could not be represented in time and hence, there was a delay of 1581 days. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and Others, 2010 (6) SCC 786 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “19. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of the Appellant’s objections filed under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless mala fides are Writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it out on such technicalities.” 8. In P.K. Palanisamy. v. N. Arumugham and another, 2009 (4) CTC 187 (SC) : 2009 (9) SCC 173 , while deciding the scope of Section 149, C.P.C., 1908, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the discretionary power relates to the Maxim ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’, the Law does not permit anyone to do impossible things and the Court has to reject such a prayer. Wherein, the Appellant while presenting the Plaint inter alia contended the sufficient Court fee stamps were not available in the Sub-Treasury. The Presiding Officer of the local Civil Court in a given situation would be aware of the fact thereof. Therefore, considering the circumstance, the prayer made in that behalf was granted liberally. In the aforesaid context, the Apex Court has further held in the decision as follows: “22. We have, however, serious reservations as to whether the Civil Court could hear a Defendant before registering a Plaint. The Code does not envisage such a situation. When a Suit is filed, the Civil Court is bound by the procedures laid down in the Code. We have, however, serious reservations as to whether the Civil Court could hear a Defendant before registering a Plaint. The Code does not envisage such a situation. When a Suit is filed, the Civil Court is bound by the procedures laid down in the Code. The Defendant upon appearing, however, in certain situations, may question the orders passed by the Civil Court at a later stage.” 9. In Sardhar Sahib and another v. Syath Jafer Sahib, 2009 (1) MLJ 1216 , this Court has condoned the inordinate delay in representing a Petition, on the ground that the First Petitioner therein was working in abroad and the Second Petitioner, a lady, was residing alone and there was a theft in her house, forcing her to go to her mother’s place in the absence of her husband. Hence, the letters sent by their Counsel had not reached her. Moreover, the only return, endorsed on the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree, was that the Counsel not serve a copy of the Petition on the Counsel for the other side and therefore, it was construed by the Court that there was a mistake on the part of the Counsel and accordingly, the delay was condoned. 10. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is no way relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the appearance of the Petitioner through Counsel before the Court below in the earlier E.P.No.87 of 2005 and the orders passed in the subsequent E.P.No.297 of 2006 having not been challenged by the Petitioner would show that there is no bona fide reason in favour of the Revision Petitioner. 11. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent/auction purchaser contended that the Revision preferred by the Petitioner/judgment-debtor is a clear abuse of process of law and Court. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. V. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. And others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 ; 2. Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam, 2009 (5) CTC 48 ; 3. Jayaraman, G v. Devarajan, 2007 (2) CTC 643 ; 4. Kandaswamy v. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, 2001 (4) CTC 722 . 12. In Sundar Gnanaolivu, rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent v. Rajendran Gnanavolivy, rep. V. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. And others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 ; 2. Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam, 2009 (5) CTC 48 ; 3. Jayaraman, G v. Devarajan, 2007 (2) CTC 643 ; 4. Kandaswamy v. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, 2001 (4) CTC 722 . 12. In Sundar Gnanaolivu, rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent v. Rajendran Gnanavolivy, rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, 2003 (1) LW 585, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “..14-A. In yet another Division Bench Judgment reported in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tuticorin v. Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Madurai and another, 1990 (10) LLN 457, the principles relating to rule of limitation have been discussed and the legal position has been stated by His Lordship Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan as he then was, in paragraphs 14 and 17 which reads as under: “14… If a litigant chooses to approach the Court long after the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, he cannot say that no prejudice would be caused to the other side by the delay being condoned. The other side would have in all probability destroyed the records thinking that the records would not be relevant as there was no further proceeding in the matter. Hence, to view a matter of condonation of delay with a presupposition that no prejudice will be caused by the condonation of delay to the Respondent in that Application will be fallacious. In our view, each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Length of the delay should be condoned or not. It is not open to any litigant to fix his own period of limitation for instituting proceedings for which law has prescribed periods of limitation. 17… Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long time, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay, and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserved to be preferred as against technical considerations. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. Is a litigant liable to have a Damocles’ sword hanging over his head indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?...” 13. In Jayaraman, G. v. Devarajan, 2007 (2) CTC 643 , this Court (R. Banumathi, J.), has held that the delay cannot be excused as a matter of judicious generosity, since rendering substantial justice is the vital aspect and the liberal approach should not cause prejudice to the opposite party. The party claiming indulgence must establish that he has been reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter. It is a settled proposition of law that liberal exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of Limitation Act should not cause prejudice to the Plaintiff/decree-holder or the auction purchaser and deliberately causing delay cannot be considered liberally, so as to affect the rights of the other parties. 14. In Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam, 2009 (5) CTC 48 , this Court (V. Periya Karuppiah, J.), has held that the Petitioner/Defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the case, as he had failed to approach the Court immediately after service of notice, accordingly, confirmed the order of dismissal of a Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 332 days in filing a Petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 15. In Kandaswamy v. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, 2001 (4) CTC 722 , this Court (K. Sampath, J.), relying on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court has held that the Revision Petitioner therein had already been served with the notice and knew about the ex parte decree, however, failed to file Petition to set aside the ex parte order immediately. Hence, the Court took a view that the delay of 797 days was not satisfactory explained. 16. In the instant case, the Suit in O.S.No.656 of 2002 on the file of the file of the Sub-Court, Erode was filed, seeking a money decree against the Petitioner herein for a sum of `1,23,200/- to be paid with interest and costs. Hence, the Court took a view that the delay of 797 days was not satisfactory explained. 16. In the instant case, the Suit in O.S.No.656 of 2002 on the file of the file of the Sub-Court, Erode was filed, seeking a money decree against the Petitioner herein for a sum of `1,23,200/- to be paid with interest and costs. It is not in dispute that as per the material papers available on record, P.W.1 was examined in chief on 04.09.2004 and the Petitioner/Defendant had sought time to cross-examine P.W.1, hence, it was adjourned to 08.09.2004. Subsequent, neither the Petitioner herein nor his Counsel appeared, hence, he was called absent and set ex parte and ex parte decree was also passed. Pursuant to the ex parte decree, Respondent/decree-holder filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.87 of 2005. The Petitioner/judgment-debtor appeared through Counsel and took time for filing Counter, however, Counter was not filed and the Petitioner herein was also called absent and set ex parte in the E.P. Subsequently, Execution Application in E.A.No.442 of 2005 was filed by the Petitioner in the aforesaid E.P. to set aside the ex parte order along with his counter. After enquiry, the E.P. was allowed and arrest was ordered against the Petitioner/judgment-debtor. 17. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, the Petitioner/judgment-debtor had been evading arrest, hence, warrant of arrest could not be executed and hence, the Execution Petition was subsequently closed. Then the present E.P.No.292 of 2006 was filed by the Respondent/decree-holder to bring the property belongs to the Petitioner for sale, wherein notice was served on the Petitioner/judgment-debtor, however, he remained absent and was set ex parte. The property was sold in Court auction and a third party purchased the property for a sum of `4,00,500/- in the auction. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, the entire amount was deposited by the auction purchaser before the Court below. On 10.12.2007 sale was confirmed and Sale Certificate was also issued to the auction purchaser. The Respondent/decree-holder filed a Petition for payment out of the decree amount and that was ordered by the Court below, accordingly, after the order, full satisfaction of the decree was recorded and the E.P was closed. On 10.12.2007 sale was confirmed and Sale Certificate was also issued to the auction purchaser. The Respondent/decree-holder filed a Petition for payment out of the decree amount and that was ordered by the Court below, accordingly, after the order, full satisfaction of the decree was recorded and the E.P was closed. The auction purchaser filed a Petition for delivery of possession, at this stage, the Petitioner/judgment-debtor filed a Petition to condone the delay of 1581 days in representing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree. It is also brought to the notice that the Petitioner/judgment-debtor has also filed a Petition under Section 47, C.P.C. to set aside the Court auction sale, without any legal defence. 18. It is not in dispute that the Suit was filed based on a pro-note, dated 01.08.1999 and the ex pate decree was passed on 08.09.2004, nearly 7 years back. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner appeared in the Suit as well as in the early E.P. No.87 of 2005 through Counsel, however, the alleged Petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree was not represented for more than four years and four months. Though arrest was ordered in the earlier E.P., however, as the Petitioner evaded service, that E.P. was closed, then the present Execution Petition in E.P.No.292 of 2006 was filed against the property belongs to the Petitioner. Notice was served properly on the Petitioner/judgment-debtor and after proclamation of sale, property was sold in public auction. The successful bidder, a third party to the Suit paid the entire amount. As the sale was confirmed and Sale Certificate was also issued, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser was withdrawn by the decree-holder by filing a Petition before the Court below and full satisfaction was also recorded. At this stage, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek an order to condone the inordinate delay of 1581 days in representing an unnumbered Application, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte decree. It cannot be disputed that the length of delay is not a matter for deciding the Petitioner filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and rendering substantial justice is the paramount consideration. 19. In the instant case, it is clear that the Petitioner/judgment-debtor has deliberately adopted delay tactics at various stages. It cannot be disputed that the length of delay is not a matter for deciding the Petitioner filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and rendering substantial justice is the paramount consideration. 19. In the instant case, it is clear that the Petitioner/judgment-debtor has deliberately adopted delay tactics at various stages. Having appeared through Counsel in the earlier Execution Petition in E.P.No.87 of 2005, evaded arrest and has not challenged various earlier orders passed in the Execution Petition has casually filed the Application before the Court below to condone the delay in representing an Application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. and also filed a Petition under Section 47, C.P.C., which would show that it is an abuse of process of law, as argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. On the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no merit in favour of the Petitioner to allow the inordinate delay of 1581 days in representing an unnumbered Application, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte decree. As found by the Court below, the inordinate delay has not been satisfactory explained by the Petitioner herein. While deciding the Petition, this Court has to consider the substantial justice. I am of the view that allowing the Petition would render only injustice to the Second Respondent/auction purchaser, who was impleaded by the order of this Court in this Revision and the First Respondent/decree-holder, hence, to meet the ends of justice, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, as an abuse of process of Court by the Petitioner herein. 20. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.