Madras High Court
G.Jayalakshmi vs V.Vinayagam on 15 June, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
G.Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
V.Vinayagam ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 15.12.2017 made in
I.A.No.410 of 2017 in I.A.No.175 of 2015 in I.A.No.249 of 2012 in
O.S.No.49 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at
Vaniyambadi by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sugumaran
For Respondent : Mr.D.Thirumoorthy
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.410 of 2017 in I.A.No.175 of 2015 in I.A.No.249 of
2012 in O.S.No.49 of 2011 dated 15.12.2017 on the file of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi, thereby dismissing the petition to restore
the Interlocutory Application to condone the delay in filing the application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
to set aside the ex-parte decree.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the
respondent engaged Mr.D.Thirumoorthy as his counsel, the counsel for the
respondents reported no instructions before this Court.
3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff.
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance, on the strength of the
agreement for sale dated 13.05.2010. After filing the written statement, the
petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and as such, she was set
ex-parte and the suit was decreed as ex-parte by the judgment and decree
dated 30.11.2011. Immediately, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the
ex-parte decree dated 30.11.2011 along with written statement. Since the
petitioner was residing at Hyderabad and she is having minor children, she
could not able to pursue the said application, and therefore, she directed her
brother Mr.Govindaraj to follow up the suit on her behalf. Unfortunately,
her brother failed to look after the case and did not pursue the application to
set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, again, the petitioner filed a petition
to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of 492 days in I.A.No.175 of
2015. The said application also was dismissed for default on 26.04.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
Therefore, the petitioner filed the present application to restore the condone
delay petition in I.A.No.175 of 2015. The said application was dismissed by
the Court below for the reason that on the strength of the judgment and
decree, the respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.40 of 2013. In
the Execution proceedings, the Court below executed the sale deed on
11.02.2015. An execution petition has also been filed for delivery of
possession. On the strength of the sale deed, the delivery of possession also
recorded by the Execution Court and subsequently, the Execution Petition
was closed.
4. Under these circumstances, no purpose would be served to restore
the petition to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the
ex-parte decree. 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, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
15.06.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
CRP.NPD.No.2833 of 2018
15.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
