Madras High Court
N. Seshajalam vs R. Purushothaman on 21 April, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.859 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.859 of 2016
N. Seshajalam ... Petitioner/Defendant
Vs.
R. Purushothaman ... Respondents/Plaintiff
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedural Code challenging the order and decreetal order in I.A.No.139 of
2013 in O.S.39 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Vellore dated 05.12.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Babu
For Respondent : Mr. T.R. Sathiyamohan
ORDER
(Heard through video conferencing)
This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed in
I.A.No.139 of 2013 in O.S.39 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Vellore dated 05.12.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.859 of 2016
2. The Revision petitioner who is the defendant in the said suit has filed
this petition to condone the delay of 2334 days in filing the petition to set
aside the Ex-parte Decree dated 16.04.2007.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the matters of
this nature, a liberal approach has to be taken and the matter cannot be viewed
as rigidly. She further requested that in support of her contention she would
produce a Judgment, if further time is granted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the very
petition filed to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte
order itself is not maintainable for the reason that the Revision petitioner has
already filed a petition in I.A.No.325 of 2008 for the same relief and that the
said order was allowed on condition that the petitioner has to pay a sum of
Rs.200/- towards cost. The petitioner has not complied the said condition and
due to non-compliance of the said condition the petition was dismissed on
09.06.2010. These facts were not disclosed in the present petition. Had it been
disclosed this petition would not have been taken on file itself. The petition has
been taken on file only due to the said suppression of the said fact. After taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.859 of 2016
the petition on file, the learned Trial Court has correctly taken note of these
facts and appreciated the same in accordance with law.
5. It is true that some leniency should be shown in considering the
petition to condone the delay. But at the same time, the parties cannot be
allowed to abuse the process of Court. In this case, the petitioner has not stated
about the relief already granted to her for setting aside the ex-parte decree.
6. Since she has not complied the condition, the said petition was
dismissed. Neither she has chosen to challenge the same or file a petition to get
extension of time for the payment of cost before its dismissal. In such
circumstances the citation if any, the learned counsel for the petitioner intended
to produce is going to be of no use and the leniency which is required to be
shown is not applicable to the facts of this petition.
In the result, this Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
21.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
smn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.859 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA,J.
Smn
To
1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.859 of 2016
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
