Madras High Court
G.Jagatheesan vs Arulmigu Elachiamman Kovil And ... on 20 July, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.4230 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP (NPD).No.4230 of 2018
and
CMP.No.23212 of 2018 and CMP.No.4526 of 2020
G.Jagatheesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Arulmigu Elachiamman Kovil and Karpaga Vinayagar Kovil
Represent by its present administrator
Thangarasu @ Thanarasu ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the ex-
parte order and decree in I.A.No.681 of 2017 in O.S.No.160 of 2015 dated
07.09.2018 passed by the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam,
consequently permit the petitioner to defend the suit in O.S.No.160 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ganesh
For Respondent : Mr.P.Dineshkumar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.681 of 2017 in O.S.No.160 of 2015 dated
07.09.2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, thereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.4230 of 2018
dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the application to set
aside the ex-parte decree.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff.
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession. On receipt of
summons, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court below and as
such, he was set ex-parte and the ex-parte decree was passed on 18.12.2015.
Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree with
a delay of 501 days and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay
petition, it reveals that when the petitioner came to understand about the
ex-parte judgment and decree, immediately, he filed a petition to set aside
the ex-parte decree along with the application to condone delay. The suit
property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for the past several
years. In the said petition, the petitioner side documents were marked as
Ex.R.1 and Ex.R2. Ex.R1 is the notice and Ex.R.2 is the acknowledgement.
As per the notice dated 04.11.2016, the Petitioner was informed about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.4230 of 2018
judgment and decree passed against the petitioner and the same was duly
acknowledged by the petitioner herein. Therefore, on 04.11.2016, the
petitioner had knowledge about the ex-parte judgment and decree passed
against him. On the strength of the ex-parte decree, the respondent also filed
an Execution Petition, in which the petitioner received notice and sought
time to file counter on two occasions. Only thereafter viz., after a period of
seven months, the petitioner come forward with the petition to set aside the
ex-parte decree with the delay of 501 days. Therefore, he filed a false
affidavit and there is no sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the Court
below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
20.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.4230 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
To
1. The District Munsif, Nagapattinam.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
CRP (NPD).No.4230 of 2018
20.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
