Madras High Court
K. Venkatachalam vs R. Periyasamy on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.561 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.4779 of 2021
K. Venkatachalam
.. Petitioner
Vs.
R. Periyasamy
.. Respondent
Prayer: Revison Petiton is filed under secrion 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to set aside the order in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in
O.S.No.250 of 2007 dated 14.02.2020 on the file of Principal
Subordinate Judge at Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Varanesh
For Respondent : Mr. T.L. Thirumalaisamy
ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.250 of 2007 is the Revision Petitioner
herein. In a suit for recovery of money based on a Promissory Note,
the Revision petitioner filed a written statement. Issues were framed.
The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1. The promissory note
was marked as Ex.A1. The report of the Fingerprint Expert was
marked as Ex.C1. The suit was adjourned for cross examination. On
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the side of the defendant, no one came forward to cross examine
P.W.1. The defendant was therefore set exparte. Thereafter, an ex
parte judgment was passed on 20.02.2015. Subsequently, an
execution petition also came to be filed. Notice was directed in the
said execution petition. On behalf of the revision petitioner, an
Advocate entered appearance on 15.10.2015. Application to set aside
the ex parte decree along with application to condone the delay of
1451 days was filed only in the year 2019. The Principal Subordinate
Judge, Namakkal, before whom the application to condone the delay of
1451 days came up for consideration, dismissed the Application by
order dated 14.2.2020 stating that no satisfactory reasons had been
given to condone the said huge delay.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that the
order itself is a non-speaking order and that the contentions in the
Affidavit have not been considered. However, the learned Subordinate
Judge relied on Ex.A1 and Ex.C1 which are the promissory note and a
report of the Fingerprint Expert and also held that the delay between
2015 and 2019 had not been explained except for stating that the
revision petitioner suffered from ill health. In the affidavit, it was
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
stated that when learned counsel were appointed, the petitioner was of
the bona fide impression that the matter would be looked after by
them. However, in order to substantiate these aspects, the petitioner
did not graze the witness box and did not subject himself for cross
examination.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge had no other alternative but
to dismiss the application. The order impugned does not require any
interference at the hands of this Court. No additional documents have
been filed giving reasons for the delay or to substantiate the reason for
such delay. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There will
be no order as to costs.
13.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
mrn
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge at Namakkal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
mrn
C.R.P.(NPD) No.561 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.4779 of 2021
13.07.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
