Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 13.12.2004 passed in I.A.No.210 of 2004 in O.S.No.76 of 2001, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the defendant to get the delay of 90 days condoned in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get set aside the exparte-decree of specific performance. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the delay occurred due to the illness of the revision petitioner. 6. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent would oppose the revision petition on the ground that absolutely, there is no evidence produced to establish that the revision petitioner was continuously suffering from ill-health for a continuous period of 90 days. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the period of 90 days is not huge and that the exparte decree in specific performance is touching upon the immovable property, I would like to take a lenient view and the delay of 90 days is condoned, subject to the payment of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) by the revision petitioner to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. On such payment of costs, I.A.No.210 of 2004 shall be taken on file by the lower Court and in the event Order IX Rule 13 petition being allowed and the exparte decree set aside and the suit itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter. 9. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.