JUDGMENT :- 1. The above civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the court below in refusing to condone the delay of 482 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.10019 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,920/- together with interest. In the said suit, an exparte decree came to be passed on 07.10.2010 since the petitioner failed to appear before the court on the said date. The said exparte decree was sought to be set aside with a delay of 482 days. The application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.10232/2012 seeking to condone the said delay came to be rejected. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that he was not served with summon in the suit and only when notice was received from the Execution Court, he came to know about the exparte decree passed in the suit on 07.10.2010. On the other hand, the finding of the court below is that the suit summon was served on 04.11.2009 on the petitioner and one Baskaran, the Manager of the defendant Company received the suit summon. W hen the finding of the court below is that the suit summon was served on the defendant especially, when the defendant is a Private limited Company, then the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that no service of summon was effected when the fact remains that the Manager of the petitioner Company received the summon. Therefore, when the summon was duly served on the defendant, then there is no reason as to why they remained exparte when the matter was called on 07.10.2010. In fact, it is also found by the court below that after passing the exparte decree, the plaintiff filed an amendment petition and in that petition also, a notice was served on the defendant. After receiving the notice in the said application also, the defendant did not appear to contest the same. Consequently, the said application was allowed exparte. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the defendant failed to appear before the Court below inspite of receipt of notice in the suit. After receiving the notice in the said application also, the defendant did not appear to contest the same. Consequently, the said application was allowed exparte. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the defendant failed to appear before the Court below inspite of receipt of notice in the suit. The court below has rightly rejected the application by holding that the petitioner has not furnished any valid reason or sufficient cause to condone the delay. The order of the court below passed by exercising its discretion does not warrant any interference by this court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.