Judgment :- 1. This memorandum of civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2005 and made in I.A.No.927 of 2005 in O.S.No.256 of 1998, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.48,260/- along with subsequent interest. The revision petitioner has also contested the suit in filing his written statement on 17.12.2004. When the suit stood posted for trial on 14.10.2003, the revision petitioner was not able to appear and there was also no representation on his behalf before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court has passed an ex-parte decree on the same day itself, directing the revision petitioner to pay the decree amount to the respondent. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact of passing of ex-parte decree was not informed to the revision petitioner by his counsel who had appeared before the trial Court. When Section 5 application to condone the delay of 399 days came up for hearing, the revision petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the respondent was also examined as D.W.1. But the trial Court has not convinced with the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner and therefore, it proceeded to dismiss the Section 5 application on the ground that no adequate reasons were available to condone the delay of 399 days to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against the revision petitioner. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.09.2005, this present revision has been preferred. 4. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has dismissed the application only on the sole ground that passing of ex-parte decree was not intimated by the counsel and submitted that since the petitioner being a rustic villager did not know about the procedure of law and therefore, he could not file the application in time. He has further submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton and considering the factual position, liberal view had to be taken in this case as the decree was relating to the payment of money and unless the ex-parte decree was not been set aside, the revision petitioner would be put into irreparable loss, as he was not in a position to mobilize the amount to satisfy the decree. 5. 5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner and other materials available on record, this Court is inclined to allow the civil revision petition and to condone the delay of 399 days. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2005 is set aside and in consequent thereof, the petition in I.A.No.927 of 2005 is allowed and the delay of 399 days is condoned. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of four months as the suit is related to the year 1998. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.