P.Krishnan, v. S.P.Selvaraj

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.704 of 2016 dated 01.03.2022, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.

¶2According to the revision petitioner, the suit in O.S.No.704 of 2016 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money, in which, an ex parte decree was passed on 10.04.2017. The petitioner as defendant has moved an application in I.A.No.01 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 101 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the above suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by its order dated

01.03.2022. Aggrieved by this, the revision petitioner/defendant preferred this revision petition.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on the forged promissory note and therefore, an opportunity should be provided to the revision petitioner to putforth the defence and the matter has to be decided on merits. The trial Court, without considering the contention of the petitioner herein, erroneously dismissed the above application. He would further submit that only after receipt of the notice in the execution proceedings, the revision petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree passed against him. Since the petitioner was suffering from jaundice, he was unable to file an application in time. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.01 of 2020 by affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶4On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even in the year 2017 itself, the petitioner was set ex parte and at the time of sale of the property, the petitioner has come out with this application in order to defeat the rightful claim made by the respondent herein. He would further submit that the petitioner has not explained each and every day of delay in filing the above petition and he has not produced any documents to prove his illness.

¶5Heard on both sides and records perused.

¶6In the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur, it was observed as follows:-

25.11.2019 Njjpapy; jhd; xUjiygl;r jPh;g;ghiz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l tptuNk kDjhuUf;F njhpAk;

vd

kDjhuh;

njhptpj;Js;shh;. Mdhy;> ,ilf;fhy kD vz;.166/2017 f;fhd mwptpg;ig 25.10.2017ypNyNa mjhtJ ,uz;L tUlq;fs; Kd;Ng kDjhuh; ngw;Wf;nfhz;Ls;sJ Nkw;gb mwptpg;igg; ghprPypj;jjpy; njhpa tUfpwJ. kDjhuhpd; FWf;F tprhuiziag; ghprPypj;jjpy; mth; epiwNtw;W kDtpy; Vyk; elf;Fk; nghOJ mjid

epWj;jp

itf;ff;Nfhhp

kD nfhLj;Js;sijiaAk;> me;j kDtpy; &.10>000/-j;ij kDjhuh;

nrYj;jpAs;sJk;

xj;Jf;nfhs;fpwhh;.

08.10.2020 md;W Vyk; ,Ug;gJ Fwpj;j mwptpg;G

25.10.2017 md;W jdf;F fpilj;jjhf kDjhuh; FWf;F

tprhuizapy;

njhptpj;Js;sJ Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk;gb ,y;iy. ,uz;L tUlq;fSf;F Nkyhf

epiwNtw;W

kDit

kDjhuh; ftdpj;Jf;nfhz;bUe;J Vyk; elj;Jk; md;W kDf;fis

kDjhuh;

jhf;fy; nra;Js;sjhf

,e;ePjpkd;wk;

fUJfpd;wJ. &.10>000/ j;ij nrYj;jpNa kDjhuh; Vyj;ij epWj;jp itj;Js;shh;. mjd;gpwF NtW ve;j njhifiaAk; kDjhuh;> vjph;kDjhuUf;F nrYj;jTk; ,y;iy.

25.11.2019 md;Wjhd; xUjiygl;r jPh;g;ghiz Fwpj;J jdf;F njhpAk; vd njhptpj;Js;s kDjhuh; mjd;

gpwFk;

ehl;fs;

fhyjhkjk; nra;Nj ,k;kDitj; jhf;fy; nra;Js;shh;. NkYk;> ,k;kDtpy; tprhuizf;F kl;Lk; gj;J Kiwf;Fk;

Nkyhf

kDjhuh;

tha;jhf;fs; ngw;Ws;shh;. Nkw;gb rq;fjpfisg; ghprPypj;jjpy; kDjhuUf;F tof;F elj;Jk; vz;zk; ,Ug;gjhfj; njhpatutpy;iy.

Vyj;ij

epWj;jpitj;Jtpl;L fhyjhkjk; nra;Ak; Nehf;fk; kDjhuhpd; Nehf;fk; njspthf njhpfpwJ. mjdhy;> kDit js;Sgb nra;J cj;jputpLtJ rhpahdnjd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ.

¶7From the records on materials, it is found that even knowing the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner, the petitioner was keeping silent, till sale proceedings were initiated. Further, no sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner herein to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner is bound to give sufficient cause or good cause to prove his bona-fideness. In this case, no sufficient or good cause is shown except stating that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice, which is also bereft of details. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes cp To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur. K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,

J.

cp Dated: 26.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.07.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI and CMP(MD) No.428 of 2023 P.Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs. S.P.Selvaraj ... Respondent Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prays to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.704 of 2016 dated 01.03.2022, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.I.Velpradeep