7.So it was only upon compliance of direction of this Court to deposit the amount by the respondent, the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was allowed. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner filed the written statement in November 2010 within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed in the civil revision petition. That is the first time, the revision petitioner has pleaded his defence contesting the suit. Even on the first occasion, the petitioner has disputed the signature in one of the Stamp papers found in the suit agreement. The position was made clear by the revision petitioner in his cross examination where he specifically admits his signature in the second page of said agreement Ex.A1 but consciously disputes the signature in the first page of Ex.A1. The revision petitioner was examined during the month of February second week. However, the application seeking comparison of signatures found in Ex.A1 was filed on 25.04.2011. The affidavit filed in support of the petition disclose valid reasons. The facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the case of revision petitioner is consistent and the only defence that has been raised in the written statement revolves around the proof of his signature in the first page of Ex.A1. It is in the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the defendant in the suit to prove his case in defence. The lower court has dismissed the petition only on the ground of delay. Delay can be explained by valid reason. Delay will be vital when the court comes to the conclusion that there is no bonafides in the application. However, in the present case, the civil revision petitioner has raised his defence by disputing his signature in the first page of Ex.A1. Dismissing the petition on the ground of delay of about 2 months after the filing of the written statement is inequitable. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that serious prejudice will be caused to the respondent. As pointed out earlier the money which was spent by the respondent had already been deposited by the revision petitioner. Depends upon the out come of the proceedings, the respondent may be able to get the amount deposited by the revision petitioner before the lower Court.
