Madras High Court
P.Kumar vs N.Elumalai on 17 June, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
C.M.P.No.15439 of 2018
1. P.Kumar
2. P.Manikandan
3. P.Arumugam
4. P. Alamelu ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. N.Elumalai
2. R.Kariraman
3. S.Meena
4. Minor Kousalya
Rep by her mother Meena
5. Minor Poovizhi
Rep by her mother Meena ... Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
23.04.2018 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in
I.A.No.14 of 2017 in O.S.No.166 of 2007 by allowing the present Civil
Revision Petition.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenal
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and
decreetal order dated 23.04.2018, passed by the learned I Additional
Subordinate Judge, Salem in I.A.No.14 of 2017 in O.S.No.166 of 2007,
thereby dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the set aside
the exparte decree.
2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 4 and the first
respondent is the plaintiff. The first respondent filed suit for declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. After receipt of the suit
summons, the petitioners engaged counsel and failed to appear before the
Court below. Therefore, they were set exparte and ex-parte judgment and
decree passed on 10.09.2008. After the period of several years, the
petitioners filed petition in I.A.No.14 of 2017 to condone the delay in filing
the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said petition was dismissed
by the Court below, as against which the present Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
3. It is seen from the records, after the exparte decree, the first
respondent filed execution petition in R.E.P.No.201 of 2014 for recovery of
cost. In the said execution petition, notice was served and on receipt of the
same, the petitioners came to the knowledge about the decree passed by the
Court below. Immediately, the petitioners engaged counsel and appeared
before the execution Court in R.E.P.No.201 of 2014 on 17.03.2014 and
took time for filing counter in the execution petition. Thereafter, they failed
to file any counter and again they were set exparte and attachment was
ordered. In the mean time, the first respondent filed another petition in
R.E.A.No.77 of 2016 seeking permission of the Court below for
simultaneous execution in respect of the relief of permanent injunction, in
which notice was ordered. The notice was duly received by the petitioners
and they also engaged counsel and took time for filing counter.
4. Therefore, in both the proceedings, the petitioners engaged
counsel and took time for filing counter. Even then, they did not take any
steps to set aside the exparte decree passed in the main suit. That apart,
there is no explanation for the delay in non-filing of the petition to set aside
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
the exparte decree. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition
filed by the petitioners and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the Court below.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
17.06.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
To
1. I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2544 of 2018
C.M.P.No.15439 of 2018
17.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
