Act, the petitioner seeks to condone the delay of 2686 days in filing the set aside petition. When the affidavit filed in support of the said application is perused, it shows that the petitioner had blamed her counsel as if he failed to inform her about the stage of the case. She further admitted in the said affidavit that after receiving notice in the execution proceedings she had approached her counsel and asked him to communicate about the development of the proceedings. It is her case that her counsel did not communicate any of the development s. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein by filing a counter affidavit. The Court below has found that after receiving notice in the execution proceedings the petitioner appeared before the Court on 19.02.2008 and even thereafter she has not taken any steps to file the application to set aside the exparte decree immediately. On the other hand nearly after four years from the date of her appearance in E.P., the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed on 04.04.2012. Thus it is manifestly clear that the petitioner has not adduced any valid and convincing reason for filing the application with such enormous delay. The Court below considered all these facts and circumstances and by exercising its discretion, has rejected the application. I find no irregularity or infirmity with the order passed by the Court below. 5.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cse To The III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.V.Chinnasamy, Advocate Sr 40350 GR(CO) km/19.8. C.R.P.(NPD)No.2716 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
