Madras High Court
Shiek Mohamed Jan vs S.Krishnan on 23 July, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)No.3131 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.3131 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.18004 of 2018
Shiek Mohamed Jan ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Krishnan ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
18.07.2018, passed in I.A.No.246 of 2017 in O.S.No.120 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthagarai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair
and decreetal order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Uthagarai, in I.A.No.246 of 2017 in O.S.No.120 of 2015, thereby
dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 255 days in filing the
petition to set aside the exparte decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3131 of 2018
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the
plaintiff. The respondent filed suit in O.S.No.120 of 2015 for recovery of
money. After receipt of the summons in the suit, the petitioner appeared
through his counsel and filed written statement. When P.W.1 was in box
for cross-examination, the petitioner failed to cross-examine P.W.1. In
fact, his Advocate was also failed to appear before the Court below to
cross-examine P.W.1, due to Advocates' boycott. Thereafter, he was set
exparte and exparte judgment and decree passed on 10.06.2016.
Therefore, the petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.246 of 2017 to condone
the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The trial
Court dismissed the said petition as against which, the present Civil
Revision Petition.
3. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition to
condone the delay, the petitioner stated that he was bedridden due to his
kidney disease and he had undergone surgery. Whereas it is seen from the
records, in the main suit, an attachment before judgment was ordered and
against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3131 of 2018
Principal Session Judge, Krishnagiri, with the delay of 53 days. In the
said delay petition, notice was ordered and the respondent filed counter
and categorically stated about the exparte decree. Even then, the
petitioner did not take any steps to file petition to set aside exparte decree
in time.
4. That apart, on the strength of the exparte decree, the
respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.74 of 2017 in which, notice
was duly served on the petitioner on 10.03.2017 itself. Therefore, the
reasons stated by the petitioner in the condone the delay petition, are
false and insufficient to condone the delay 255 days. Therefore, the Court
below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
23.07.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3131 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Uthagarai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3131 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.18004 of 2018
23.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
