ORDER : R.Vijayakumar, J. The plaintiff in O.S.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram is the present revision petitioner challenging the order of the trial Court wherein the trial Court has allowed an application to condone the delay of 145 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. 2.The revision petitioner herein has filed the above said suit for the relief of ejectment and for a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.600/- towards damages for use and occupation of the schedule building till surrender of possession. 3.The defendant was set exparte and an exparte decree came to be passed on 22.06.2015. The plaintiff had filed E.P.No.39 of 2015. The defendant has chosen to file the present application to condone the delay of 145 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. According to the defendant, he had engaged a counsel at Tirunelveli to attend his case at Valliyur. Since the said counsel could not attend the hearing on the said date, an exparte decree came to be passed. Only when he received a notice in the execution proceedings, he came to know about the exparte decree and immediately, he has filed the application to set aside the exparte decree. 4.The said application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the delay has been caused due to the willful negligence on the part of the defendant. That apart, the decree is not an exparte decree, but a decree on merits. Further, the order of delivery has also been passed. Therefore, in such circumstances, the application to condone the delay is not maintainable. 5.The trial Court after considering the submissions on either side, has proceeded to arrive at a finding that the decree is an exparte decree and condoned the delay on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. 6.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the decree is not an exparte decree. PW1 was cross examined by the defendant. Thereafter, PW2 was not cross examined and an exparte decree came to be passed. The defendant has already cross examined PW1. Hence, there was substantial portion of evidence on the part of the defendant and therefore, the decree cannot be considered to be an exparte decree. PW1 was cross examined by the defendant. Thereafter, PW2 was not cross examined and an exparte decree came to be passed. The defendant has already cross examined PW1. Hence, there was substantial portion of evidence on the part of the defendant and therefore, the decree cannot be considered to be an exparte decree. The only option open to the defendant is to file an appeal and therefore, the present application to condone the delay of 145 days, treating the said decree as an exparte decree is not maintainable. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5155 of 2023 dated 16.08.2023 ( Y.P.Lele Vs. Maharashtra State, Electricity Distribution Company Ltd and others ) and contended that when the plaintiff is cross examined, it should be treated that the substantial portion of defendant's evidence is already on record. He also relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP(MD).No.995 of 2019 dated 11.09.2023 (S.Kishore Kumar Vs.N.Sekar) wherein in paragraph No.14, this Court has held that when the defendant has cross examined the plaintiff, it should be considered to be a substantial evidence on behalf of the defendant. 8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant had contended that the cross examination of the plaintiff by the defendant cannot be considered to be substantial portion of the evidence on the side of the defendant. The defendant has not entered into the box at all. He relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (4) CTC 122 (G.Ratna Raj (D) by Lrs. Vs. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd., and another) wherein after closure of the plaintiff's side evidence, the defendants have not let in any evidence and they were set exparte and an exparte judgment came to be passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the said judgment is an exparte judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2005) 4 CTC 451 ( T.Kalyanasundaram Vs. M.S.Arumuganayakar ) wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that when the defendant has not let in any evidence at all, the judgment should only be treated as an exparte evidence. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the trial Court. 9.Heard both sides and perused the material records. M.S.Arumuganayakar ) wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that when the defendant has not let in any evidence at all, the judgment should only be treated as an exparte evidence. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the trial Court. 9.Heard both sides and perused the material records. 10.Whether the cross examination of PW1 by the defendant could be considered to be substantial portion of evidence on the part of the defendant?. 11.As per the explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C where an evidence or substantial portion of evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on the next day of the hearing, the Court in its discretion can proceed with the case as if such parties were present. 12.In the present case, the defendant has cross examined PW1 and thereafter had remained exparte. The defendant has not let in any evidence on his side. Therefore, the issue now that arises for consideration is whether cross examination of plaintiff's side evidence by the defendant would amount to recording of substantial portion of evidence on the side of the defendant. 13.A careful perusal of the facts in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (4) CTC 122 ( G.Ratna Raj (D) by Lrs. Vs. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd., and another) reveal in the said case that the defendants have cross examined the plaintiff and after closing of the plaintiffs' side evidence, the defendants remained exparte. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.6, 7, and 23 to 28 has held as follows: “ 6.The defendants on being served entered their appearance and filed their written statement. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed the issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. The defendants cross examined the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his case. The case was accordingly posted for recording defendants’ evidence. 7. At that stage of the proceedings, the defendants did not appear in the suit and, therefore, the Court proceeded ex parte against them. The proceedings in the suit then continued as ex parte against the defendants. The plaintiff then got himself re- examined in the proceedings. He, however, could not be re-cross examined by the defendants because they were already proceeded ex parte in the proceedings. 2 3. The proceedings in the suit then continued as ex parte against the defendants. The plaintiff then got himself re- examined in the proceedings. He, however, could not be re-cross examined by the defendants because they were already proceeded ex parte in the proceedings. 2 3. Now when we examine the facts of the case at hand keeping in view the law laid down in the case of B Janakiramaiah Chetty (supra), we find that the plaintiff’s evidence was recorded and his case was also closed. It is not in dispute that the defendants were placed ex parte on the date when the case was fixed for recording defendants’ evidence but the same was not recorded due to the defendants’ absence on the said date. In other words, it was a case where the defendants did not lead any evidence. 24. In such a situation arising in the case, in our view, the case at hand would not fall under Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code because in order to attract the Explanation, "such party" which has led evidence or has led substantial part of the evidence, if fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the case is adjourned, the Court may treat “such party” as "present" on that day and is accordingly empowered to proceed in the suit. 25. In this case, the party, who was absent and was proceeded ex parte was the "defendants" and they had not led any evidence whereas it was the plaintiff, who was present and had led his evidence. 26. In other words, if the plaintiff had remained absent and was found to have led evidence, the Court could have invoked its powers under Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code treating the plaintiff as "present" for passing appropriate orders. Such is, however, not the case here. 27. Similarly, in converse situation, if the defendants had remained absent (as has happened in this case) on that date and if it would have noticed that they had adduced the evidence either fully or substantially prior to the date on which they were proceeded ex parte, the Court could have invoked its powers under Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code treating the defendants as "present" on that day for passing appropriate orders in the suit. Such is, however, again not the case here. 28. Such is, however, again not the case here. 28. We are, therefore, of the view that since the defendants were proceeded ex parte and were found not to have led any evidence in the suit, the Court could only proceed under Order 17 Rule 3 (b) read with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code for disposal of the suit by taking recourse to one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order 9 of the Code or could have made any other order as it thinks fit.” 14.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 INSC 732 (Y.P.Lele Vs.Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., and others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.19 has categorically pointed out that the explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C is confined to record the presence of that party and that party alone which has led evidence or substantial evidence and thereafter failed to appear. Therefore, the said judgement is not in favour of the revision petitioner. 15.In view of the above said deliberations, the judgement of the trial Court is only exparte in nature, in view of the fact that the defendant has not let in any evidence at all. The trial Court has rightly allowed the application to condone the delay of 145 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. There are no merits in this revision petition. This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31.12.2025.