Arumuga Udayar vs A.Ramachandran
2021 Latest Caselaw 12263 Mad

                                                                              C.R.P (NPD) No.986 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 23.06.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             C.R.P (NPD) No.986 of 2018
                                                       and
                                               C.M.P.No.5265 of 2018

                     1. Arumuga Udayar
                     2. Kamalam @ Kamalammal                                       ... Petitioners

                                                             Vs.
                     A.Ramachandran                                                ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil
                     Procedure Code, to set aside fair and final order dated 15.03.2017 passed
                     by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem in I.A.No.481 of 2014 in
                     O.S.No.707 of 2008.

                                           For Petitioners     : Mr.L.Mouli

                                           For Respondent      : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

                                                       ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and

decretal order passed in I.A.No.481 of 2014 in O.S.No.707 of 2008 dated

15.03.2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem,

thereby dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 1680 in filing the

application to set aside the ex-parte decree. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P (NPD) No.986 of 2018

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 3 and the respondent is

the plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit for partition. The respondent is

none other than the first wife's son of the first petitioner herein. The

second petitioner is the second wife of the first petitioner herein. After

receipt of the summons, the petitioners did not appear before the Trial

Court and as such, they were set ex-parte and the ex-parte judgment and

decree was passed on 27.04.2009. According to the petitioners, after

filing of the suit, there was a Panchayat between the parties in front of

the Panchayatars. During the said Panchayat, the respondent's issue was

settled by paying a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent in the month of

March 2012 and a memorandum of compromise was entered. As per the

said memorandum of compromise, the first petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3

lakhs to the respondent on 20.03.2012. In the said Panchayat, the

respondent had also undertaken to withdraw the suit filed by him for

partition. On such payment, the first petitioner was under the impression

that the suit was withdrawn by the respondent herein. But the respondent

did not withdraw the suit and as such, the petitioners were set ex-parte

before the trial Court and the ex-pate preliminary decree was passed.

Only because of the said Panchayat, they did not file the petition to set

aside the ex-parte decree in time. In support of his contentions, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P (NPD) No.986 of 2018

petitioners were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 before the Trial Court.

P.W.2 and P.W.3 are set to have participated in the Panchayat.

3. On a perusal of their evidence, they have absolutely no

knowledge about the Panchayat held between the parties and also no

knowledge about the payment of Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent herein.

Therefore, the reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the

condone delay petition is not proved by the petitioners herein

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also raised another

ground that the ex-parte judgment is not in consonance with the Order

XX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. When the petitioners stated false

reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and

also not stated sufficient reasons for the huge delay of 1680 days, the

other grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be looked into. Therefore,

the petitioners also failed to produce any document to show that the sum

of Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the respondent during the Panchayat. No

prudent man would fail to receive any receipt on payment of Rs.3 lakhs,

that too in the Panchayat. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the

petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed

by the Court below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P (NPD) No.986 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

kv

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

23.06.2021 kv

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

To

1. The Principal District Munsif, Salem.

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.

C.R.P (NPD) No.986 of 2018

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/