S. Banumathi, v. 1. Nainar (Died), 2. Vasuki,

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The petitioner is the defendant before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.11 of 2016 filed by the respondent. The suit was filed by the respondent for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

3.The suit was decreed after the petitioner entered appearance on

06.10.2016. The judgment of the Court indicates that the petitioner had not filed written statement. After a lapse of 1419 days from the date of decree, the petitioner had filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC together with the application to condone the delay of 1419 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

4.The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the petitioner reads as under:- 'nkw;go fpiua Mtzk; vz;.2975/1906 d; go nkw;go brhj;ij gphprpy;yh ghz;oad; vd;gth; fle;j 2001k; Mz;L eapdhh; vd;gtUf;F fpiua Mazk; vz;. 2975/2001 d; go fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;Js;shh;. Nkw;go fpiua Mtzk; vz;.2975/2001 d; go eapdhh; vd;gth; nkw;go fpiua tPl;Lj; jPh;it kpd;,izg;g[ kw;Wk; FoePh; ,izg;g[fis nkw;goahhpd; bgaUf;F khw;wpaJ gw;wpa[k; ,e;jg; gpujpthjpf;F ahbjhU tpguKk; bjhpahJ.' "

5.After considering the argument advanced by the petitioner, the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed for condoning the delay of 1419 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree with the following observations:- "11.tHf;F Mtzq;fis ghprPyid bra;ifapy;> xU jiyg;gl;r jPh;g;ghiz 06.10.2016y; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l epiyapy;> bfhnuhdh Culq;F khh;r; 2020 Kjny jkpH; ehl;oy; mky;gLj;jg;gl;L te;j epiyapy;> kDjhuh; jug;gpy; khh;r; 2020-f;F Kd;dh; cs;s fhyjhkjj;jpw;fhd fhuzk; eU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh vd;gij ghprPyid bra;ifapy;> kDjhuh; jdJ kDit jhd; Jgha;f;F brd;W rpwpJ ehs; fHpj;J te;jjhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epiyapy;> kDjhuh; ve;j fhyfl;lj;jpy; Jghapy; ,Ue;jhh; vd;gij gh];nghh;l; cs;spl;l Mtzq;fs; K:yk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F bjhpag;gLj;j tHp cs;s epiyapy;> mjw;fhd Mtzk; vJt[k; kDjhuh; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jtpy;iy. Kdjhuh; jdJ jug;ig bjhpag;gLj;Jk; epiyapy;> ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpak; mspf;ft[k; Kd; tutpy;iy.

12.nkw;fz;l R{H;epiyapy;> In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 18.01.2016 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Duraiswamy CRP(NPD)No.2890 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 V.Amutha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Venkatesan

2.Krishnaveni ... Respondents

7.It is settled position that unless a party seeking for condonation ofthe delay shows sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the delay cannot be condoned. In the case on hand, in the absence of any acceptable reason shown by the defendants to condone the inordinate delay of 750 days, the 5same cannot be condoned. Therefore, the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.214 of 2012 in O.S.No.493 of 2008 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are set aside.' kw;Wk;> -3-LW 1034 2007 vd;w jPh;g;gpy;> @ When there is a deliberate delay, the respondent herein cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserve to be preferred as against technical consideration – delay cannot be excused as a matter of judicial generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not cause prejudice to the opposite party-liberal exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act would cause prejudice to the plaintiff/decree Holder, who has been persuing the money suit for quiet a long time" -vd;w jPh;g;g[fspd; go kDjhuh; jug;gpy; 1419 ehl;fs; fhyjhkjj;jpw;fhd fhuzk; chpa Kiwapy; epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;> kDjhuUf;F fhytiuaiw rl;lk; gphpt[ 5d; fPHhd gyd;fs; fpilf;ff;Toajy;y vd;Wk;> kDjhuh; kDtpy; Twpa[s;s 1419

ehl;fs;

fhyjhkjk;

chpa

Kiwapy; tpthpf;fg;glhjjhy;

,k;kD

mDkjpf;f

cfe;jjy;y vd;W ,eePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ. ,Wjpapy; ,k;kD js;Sgo bra;ag;gfpwJ.'

6.Reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the above orders indicates that the petitioner has not sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay caused in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The application filed for condoning the delay has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The suit is only for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, there is no merits in challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

27.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss To

1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN,J. dss C.R.P(MD).No.1147 of 2023

27.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.R.P(MD).No.1147 of 2023 S.Banumathi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant Vs. 1.Nainar(Died) 2.Vasuki ... Respondent/Proposed party/NIL PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC, to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and allow this Civil Revision Petition with costs. For petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For respondent : Mr.T.Selvakumaran