Govindharaj vs Selvaraj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14893 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2022

Madras High Court
Govindharaj vs Selvaraj on 6 September, 2022
                                                                               C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020
                                                                                and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 06.09.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
                                                    C.R.P.(NPD).769 of 2020
                                                             and
                                                    C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020


                     Govindharaj                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.

                     Selvaraj                                                    ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
                     Civil Procedure against the orders dated 29.07.2019 passed in
                     I.A.No.1141 of 2018 in O.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate
                     Judge, Kallakurichi.

                                   For Petitioner            : Mr.R.Agilesh for
                                                                Mr.T.Dhanasekaran


                                                         JUDGMENT

The present revision petition is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.1141 of 2018 in O.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi.

Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020

2. The suit in O.S.No.24/2013 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money due under a promissory note. The revision petitioner/defendant filed a written statement stating that he did not receive any amount from the plaintiff. Subsequently, after framing of issues in the suit, the suit was posted for trial on 06.07.2015, on which date the defendant did not appear before the Court and therefore, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on the same date. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a execution petition in E.P.No.66/2016 for arresting the revision petitioner/defendant in the year 2016. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/defendant filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.24/2013 along with a petition in I.A.No.1141/2018 to condone the delay of 446 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. After full contest, the said petition was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, vide his order dated 29.07.2019. The main contention of the revision petitioner in I.A.No.1141/2018 was that he was bedridden due to jaundice and that he was taking native treatment. The learned Subordinate Judge observed that the revision petitioner did not adduce Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020 any documentary evidence to show that he was suffering from jaundice for more than 1½ years and dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant.

3. Though the notice was served on the respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

4. Heard, Mr.R.Agilesh learned counsel for the revision petitioner. His contention is that since the petitioner was taking native treatment he could not adduce any documentary evidence and this has not been taken into account by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi.

5. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act each day's delay has to be explained and in the instant case, the revision petitioner had filed his written statement and when the matter was posted for trial, he did not Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020 appear before the Court. He did not even make any attempt to contact his counsel on record and only after filing of execution petition by the plaintiff, he approached the Court and filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.24/2013 along with petition in I.A.No.1141/2018 to condone delay.

6. In the circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the revision petitioner wants to drag on the proceedings as far as possible. In any event the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 446 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances, the revision petition fails and is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020 R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl To The Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi.

C.R.P.(NPD).769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020 06.09.2022 Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis