Sankarpandi v. Ganesan

ORDER The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 20.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in I.A.No.344 of 2017 in O.S.No.498 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

¶2The petitioner is the defendant before the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.498 of 2016 filed by the respondent. The respondent has filed the above suit to recover a sum of Rs.5,84,666/- together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶3It appears that the petitioner was set ex parte on 24.04.2017. On the same day, an order also came to be passed for attaching the property of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 for sending the signature for examination by an expert after comparison under Order 26 Rule 10 (a) of C.P.C. I.A.No.1 of 2019. I.A.No.1 of 2019 was dismissed by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul with the following observations:

¶8On perusing the entire case records and the arguments put forth on both side, this court finds that the Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of amount by saying that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.05.2015 at the residence of Plaintiff and for the due repayment of principal amount with interest, the defendant executed suit pronate on 27.5.2015, but the defendant filed his written statement by denying the receipt of any amount from the Plaintift and any body and denied the execution of pronote and specifically stated that the signature found in the disputed pronote. pronote is not that of the defendant and on the date of the pronote the petitioenr was at Jammu and kashmir and not at Dindigul. Therefore this court finds that before filing of the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant and the same has been received by him and even after receipt of legal notice, he failed to give reply to the legal notice. Further though the defendant was worked at Jammu and Kashmir there are possibilities for him to visit to his native place on leave or long vacation. Further the plaintiff is having night to adduce Oral and documentary evidence to prove his case and at that time, the defendant can cross examine the plaintiff side witnesses to disprove the case of the Plaintiff and thereafter the defendant is having lot of chances to prove that on the date of alleged pronote, he was not in Dindigul and only after that he is entitled to send the document for comparison of his signature, hence this Parition filed at this stage is premature. Further by giving liberty to rhe Petitioner/ Defendant to file this kind of Petition with admitted document at the appropriate time, this petition can be dismissed as premature.

9.In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶4The petitioner has secured an interim order against the aforesaid order and further stayed the proceedings in O.S.No.498 of 2016 filed by the respondent by an order, dated 25.04.2022. Meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed I.A.No.344 of 2017 to raise the order of attachment. The application filed for raising the judgment was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 to condone the delay of 973 days in restoring the application filed for raising the order of attachment. The Additional Sub Court, Dindigul dismissed the application filed by the petitioner with the following observations: "9. ...,jdpilNa ,.k.vz;.344--2017 27.09.2019 mjhtJ ,.k.vz;.343/2017 kD js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;l gpd;dpl;L tprhuizf;F gyKiw xj;jp itf;fg;gl;l epiyapy; ,e;j kDjhuh; Nkw;gb kDtpid njhlh;e;J elj;j Kd;tiutpy;iy vd;gjhy; ,Wjpahf 27.09.2019 md;W jhd; js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;l gpd;Gk; mry; tof;fpy; ,.k.vz;.1/2019 mjhtJ chpikapay; eilKiw rl;lk; fl;lis 26 tpjp 10(a)d; fPo; kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L njhlh;e;J me;j kD epYitapy; ,Ue;J 29.11.2021y; js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;Ltpl;lJ. Mf ,.k.vz;.344/2017 27.09.2019y; js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;l gpd;dpl;L mry; tof;fpy; vjph;kDjhuh; njhlh;e;J M[uhfp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l gy kDf;fisAk;> mry; tof;fpYk; tprhuizapy; fye;J nfhz;Ls;shh;. vdNt 27.09.2019 md;W js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;l rq;fjp kDjhuUf;F njhpatpy;iy vd;W $Wk;

rq;fjp

,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf ,y;iy. vdNt kDjhuhpd; kD chpa

fhuzk;

nrhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;gjhy; ,r;#o;epiyapy; ,k;kD Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf ,y;iy vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;T fhz;fpwJ.

10.,Wjpahf>

,k;kD

js;Sgb

nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. nryTj; njhif ,y;iy."

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the impugned order and the background of the case.

¶6The suit is of the year 2016. Earlier, the petitioner was set ex parte on 24.04.2017, which appears to have been later set aside. Pursuant to which, the petitioner's written statement has been taken on record. The petitioner has also incidentally filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order 26 Rule 10(a) of C.P.C for getting a report of the expert after comparison. Since the application was dismissed, the petitioner has also filed C.R.P(MD)No.666 of 2022 and has secured an interim order.

¶7In my view, no useful purpose will be served by raising the order of attachment as admittedly according to the petitioner, the property is not proposed to be sold barring a stigma that the property has been attached. There will be no other prejudice that will be caused to the petitioner. Consequently, no interference is warranted at this stage.

¶8The present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

SN

24.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.04.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.4728 of 2023 Sankarpandi ...Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant Vs. Ganesan ... Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 20.02.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in I.A.No.344 of 2017 in O.S.No. 498 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For M.P.Banu Prasath