ORDER : (V. Lakshminarayanan, J.) : (Prayer in C.R.P.No.2527 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.3620 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge at Chennai. Prayer in C.M.A.No.2088 of 2024 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule of CPC to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.3620 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge at Chennai.) These Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise against the order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge at Chennai in I.A.No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.3 of 2022 respectively in O.S.No.3620 of 2019. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the suit. 2. O.S.No.3620 of 2019 was originally presented before this Court as C.S.No.293 of 2015. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.88 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner alienating or encumbering with the suit property and for costs. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 01.09.2007, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants for purchase of the suit schedule mentioned property. In terms of the joint development agreement, it was agreed that the plaintiff will exploit the suit property and develop a multistoried residential superstructure. The total consideration for agreeing to the joint development agreement was Rs.2,20,00,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.88,00,000/- to the defendants. According to the plaintiff, at the time of entering into the agreement, the suits pending between the defendants and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board were never disclosed. It was later that he came to know that A.S.No.379 of 2006 and A.S.No.380 of 2006 were pending before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The proceedings finally culminated in a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.396 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court in and by way of a judgment dated 05.11.2014. By virtue of the judgment in Second Appeal, the lack of right in the defendants to alienate the property became crystallized. The proceedings finally culminated in a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.396 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court in and by way of a judgment dated 05.11.2014. By virtue of the judgment in Second Appeal, the lack of right in the defendants to alienate the property became crystallized. Since the defendants are not in position to alienate the property, the plaintiff was left with no other remedy than to file a suit for recovery of money. 4. Summons were sent to the defendants by this Court and they were also served. However, the defendants neither entered appearance nor filed written statement within time. 5. By enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai, C.S.No.293 of 2015 stood transferred to the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court. No steps have been taken by the defendants to put forth their defence against the claim of the plaintiff. Consequently the Court, left with no other option, decreed the suit by rendering a detailed judgment on 05.12.2020. 6. On the strength of this decree, the plaintiff also proceeded with an execution petition in E.P.No.339 of 2021 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. In the execution petition, notice was ordered to the defendants / judgment debtors. They received the notice on 23.12.2021, but did not take any steps for setting aside the exparte decree immediately. It was with considerable delay of nearly 467 days that an application to condone the delay came to be filed on 17.03.2022. 7. The plea of the defendants is that, they came to know of the proceedings only when the notice in the execution petition was served and not before that. They would plead that since they were never aware of the pendency of the suit, the delay may be excused and the exparte decree may be set aside. 8. The learned Judge ordered notice in the application and received a counter from the respondent / plaintiff. 9. The respondent filed a counter specifically pleading that notice had been served on the defendants before this Court when the matter was presented as C.S.No.293 of 2015 before this Court. After renumbering the suit before the City Civil Court on transfer, notice had been ordered to the defendants and since they did not receive the same, the Court was left with no other option than to order service by newspaper publication. After renumbering the suit before the City Civil Court on transfer, notice had been ordered to the defendants and since they did not receive the same, the Court was left with no other option than to order service by newspaper publication. The plaintiff further stated that in the execution proceedings, notice was served and still the defendants did not move the application and it was only after the execution proceedings had proceeded further, they came forward with the said petition to condone the delay in setting aside the exparte decree. 10. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that though the defendants were served on 23.12.2021 in the execution proceedings, they did not move the application to condone the delay till 17.03.2022. He would hold that a lapse of 83 days remained unexplained and since there was no explanation for each day's delay, he came to conclusion that the petition lacks bonafides. On the basis of this observation, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the petition deserves an order of dismissal and accordingly dismissed it. 11. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition arises before this Court. Challenging the dismissal of the petition in I.A.No.3 of 2022 filed for setting aside the exparte decree, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises before this Court. 12. Heard Dr.C.Ravichandran for Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for the petitioners/defendants and Mr.S.R.Rajagopal for Ms.Selvi George for the respondent/plaintiff. 13. Dr.Ravichandran would submit that on account of the pandemic caused due to COVID-19 virus, the Supreme Court had excluded the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 30.04.2022. This order was applied to even presentation of suits. He would rely upon the series of directions given by the Supreme Court to state that as the decree was passed on 05.12.2020, during the height of the pandemic, the trial Court ought to have considered the said judgment and granted him the relief. He would further plead that the defendants were set exparte on the basis of newspaper publication and since the mandatory requirement of Order V had not been complied with, he would plead that the civil revision petitioners deserve all the mercy from this Court. 14. He would further plead that the defendants were set exparte on the basis of newspaper publication and since the mandatory requirement of Order V had not been complied with, he would plead that the civil revision petitioners deserve all the mercy from this Court. 14. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal would submit that the judgment in SuoMotu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 will not come to the rescue of the petitioners because, they were aware of the passing of exparte decree on 23.12.2021 and still approached the Court only on 17.03.2022. He would state, even if the explanation given by Dr.Ravichandran is accepted for the period from 05.12.2020 till 23.12.2021, he would point out, absolutely no explanation exists in the affidavit for the subsequent period. He would plead that the plaintiff had informed the defendants about the decree and yet they did not honour the same. Lastly, he would submit that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.88 lakhs under a bonafide impression that the defendants had title to alienate the property, and they had received the amounts suppressing the previous proceedings between themselves and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He would point out that there is absolutely no defence in favour of the defendants and would seek for the order of the trial Court to be confirmed. 15. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side and gone through the records. 16. It is not in dispute that the suit had been presented before this Court as early as in the year 2015. The plaintiff's payment of Rs.88 lakhs is borne out by cheque as well as by cash transactions as set forth in Para 7 of the plaint. Having received the summons from this Court, the defendants did not even bother to engage a counsel or file a written statement. It is fortunate for the plaintiff that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was enhanced, thereby the suit saw the light of trial. Even though the trial Court had issued notice, the defendants did not receive the same. Consequently, the Court had no other option than to order publication in terms of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even though the trial Court had issued notice, the defendants did not receive the same. Consequently, the Court had no other option than to order publication in terms of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial Judge did not stop with the usual 'claim proved, suit is decreed', but had taken effort to pass a detailed judgment after referring to all the documents that had been presented by the plaintiff before the Court. 17. It is here that I have to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020. The Supreme Court excluded the period of limitation for matters which had not yet approached the Court. However, the Supreme Court itself had clarified that, once the time begins to run by virtue of the said order, the time cannot be suspended. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the defendants had received the notice in the execution proceeding on 23.12.2021. They had enough time till 22.01.2022 to move the application. Had they been diligent by moving the application before 22.01.2022, certainly I would have applied the order in Suo-Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 and would have granted them the benefit. In fact, I am sure if such an application had been filed, the trial Judge himself would have granted the benefit to the defendants. Even after having been served with summons in December 2021, the defendants took their own sweet time to approach the Court only in March 2022. In other words, they were aware of the proceedings, but were sitting on the wall, watching the proceedings go by and putting the plaintiff to further difficulties. However, since the amounts of claim is heavy and taking into consideration that the defendants have never put in their defence in the suit, I am inclined to give an opportunity to the defendants. 18. Therefore, I indicated to Dr.Ravichandran that in case his clients proved their bonafides, they would be entitled to an order of condoning the delay and to set aside the exparte decree. 18. Therefore, I indicated to Dr.Ravichandran that in case his clients proved their bonafides, they would be entitled to an order of condoning the delay and to set aside the exparte decree. Taking cue from the observations of this Court, the second defendant has filed an affidavit on behalf of the other defendants undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Only) being 1/4th of the decreetal amount to the plaintiff and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand only) being the costs in the suit to the plaintiff. They would plead that the payment of Rs.22,00,000/- would be without prejudice to their rights in the suit. 19. For necessary appreciation, the relevant portions of the affidavit are extracted hereunder: 1. I am the 2nd petitioner herein and the 2nd appellant in the above appeal and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am filing this affidavit for myself and on behalf of the other petitioners also. 2. I state that the petitioners herein without prejudice undertake to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only) being 25% of the suit claim before the Trial Court to the respondent by way of Demand Draft and also undertake to pay the costs a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One Lakkh Thirty Six Lakhs only) towards costs of the suit on or before 30 (Thirty Days) from today without fail, which is being paid without prejudice to our rights of defence in the suit bearing pending in O.S.No.3620 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge at Chennai filed by the respondent herein. 3. I state that in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the suit the respondent herein and the plaintiff in the suit shall repay the said amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs only) being the 25% of the suit claim and also the costs of the suit of a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six only) forthwith and without fail to the petitioners herein. 20. In the light of this affidavit, since the defendants are compensating the plaintiff towards the entire costs and are also making a payment of Rs.22 lakhs, I am inclined to condone the delay of 83 days despite the fact there is no proper explanation for the said period. 20. In the light of this affidavit, since the defendants are compensating the plaintiff towards the entire costs and are also making a payment of Rs.22 lakhs, I am inclined to condone the delay of 83 days despite the fact there is no proper explanation for the said period. 21. In the light of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous appeal stand allowed. The delay of 467 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree stands condoned and the exparte decree is set aside on the following conditions. (a) The defendants shall pay a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand only) being the costs in the suit to the plaintiff within 30 days from today ie., on or before 27.08.2024. (b) They would further pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakhs only) to the plaintiff on or before the aforesaid date ie., 27.08.2024. (c) The payment of Rs.22,00,000/- is, of course, without prejudice to the right of the defendants. In case the suit is dismissed, the plaintiff shall refund the said amount under clause (b) to the defendants. (d) In addition, the defendants shall file their written statement on or before 27.08.2024. (e) In case any of the clauses (a), (b) and (d) are violated, the benefit granted to the defendants under this order shall not enure to them. (f) It is also made clear that no further application for extension of time will be entertained by this Court. This order is being passed since the defendants have successfully dragged on the matter from 2015 till 2024. (g) All the payments referred under clause (a) and (b) above shall not be by way of cash or cheque, but only by way of Demand Draft or NEFT/RTGS. 22. In case the defendants comply with all the conditions imposed in this order, the trial Court shall take into consideration the plaintiff had approached the Court in 2015 and give it appropriate expediency as it requires. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the exparte decree is set aside. 23. At this stage, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal sought for a relief that the defendants should not alienate the property which they are currently owning in favour of any third party. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the exparte decree is set aside. 23. At this stage, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal sought for a relief that the defendants should not alienate the property which they are currently owning in favour of any third party. Dr.Ravichandran submits that the property itself is subject matter of mortgage with ICICI bank and only after raising a loan from the bank, they can take steps to comply with the conditions imposed upon them by this order. Since the property is already mortgaged with the bank, the immediate fear of alienation does not exist. It is open to the plaintiff to move appropriate application before the trial Court for attachment or injunction, as he may be advised. 24. With the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.