Madras High Court
S.Rajan vs Mr.V.Panchatcharam on 30 June, 2021
CRP.No.1230/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP [PD] .No.1230/2021
& CMP.No.9556/2021
[Video Conferencing]
1.S.Rajan
2.Mrs.R.Kalaivani .. Petitioners /
Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr.V.Panchatcharam .. Respondent /
1st Defendant
Prayer : - Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the decreetal order dated 22.07.2020 passed by
the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in IA.No.1/2019 in
OS.No.201/2018 filed by the respondent wherein the petition for condoning
the delay fo 47 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order dated
30.04.2019.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.1230/2021
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkatesan
For Respondent ; No appearance
ORDER
(1) The revision petition has been filed questioning the order passed in
the Docket sheet dated 22.07.2020 in IA.NO.1/2019 in
OS.No.201/2018 now pending on the file of the Principal District
Court at Chengalpattu.
(2) OS.No.201/2018 had been filed by the revision petitioners herein
seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants to pay a sum of
Rs.16,01,660/- together with interest @ 24% per annum and also for
cost of the suit.
(3) A written statement had been filed by the defendants. However, they
took a conscious decision, not to participate any further in the judicial
proceedings. Therefore, on 30.04.2019, an exparte judgment and
decree had been passed against the defendants. This order had been
passed after taking into consideration, the documents filed along with
the plaint and also after examining the first plaintiff as a witness.
Thereafter, the defendants woke up and when the Execution Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.1230/2021
was filed, they filed IA.No.1/2019 seeking to condone the delay of 47
days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. A
counter was filed on behalf of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and in
the counter, the revision petitioners sought a direction from the Court
that the application to condone the delay can be allowed provided a
direction is given that the defendants should deposit at least 50% of
the decreetal amount to Court. In the revision now filed questioning
the order dated 22.07.2020, the learned Judge appears to have
allowed IA.No.1/2019 on condition to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
costs. I am informed that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was tendered
directly by the party and not tendered through the counsel and
therefore, the revision petitioners did not receive it.
(4) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners very fairly stated that
he has no grievance in the delay being condoned. But, rather raised
an objection that it is extremely unfair that the defendants could be
permitted to prolong the suit, particularly, a suit for recovery of
money and the delay in deciding, which would only cause loss to the
plaintiffs. The defendants' liability to pay interest would also accrue,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.1230/2021
if at all the suit is decreed. Therefore, the learned counsel stated that
a condition should have been imposed against the defendants to
deposit at least 50% of the decreetal amount or some reasonable
amount towards the decree.
(5) A judicial order has been passed considering the facts and
circumstances, condoning the delay of 47 days in fling the application
to set aside the exparte decree. I am not prepared to interfere with
that order. But, I would rather grant liberty to the revision petitioners
herein, if they are so advised and if they feel it appropriate and
necessary, file an Interlocutory Application, calling upon the
defendants in the suit to deposit a portion of the claim made by them
in Court and thereafter, the learned Principal District Judge,
Chengalpattu, can adjudicate the issues. By deposit of such amount,
the interest of the revision petitioners would only be made more
secure. It would also be an impetus to the respondents/defendants to
participate in the judicial proceedings with diligence and not attempt
to protract the trial proceedings. If the plaintiffs are so advised, they
may file necessary application in that regard and if such application is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.1230/2021
filed I am confident that the learned Judge would take it up in its true
spirit and pass appropriate orders.
(6) Insofar as the cost amount of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, there shall be
a direction permitting the defendants/respondents to deposit the same
to the credit of OS.No.201/2018 and later, at the time of passing final
judgment, the learned Judge may pass suitable orders with respect to
the same. Since the written statement has been filed, the learned
Judge may, depending upon the pendency of the cases in the Court,
take up the matter, post it for special list and proceed with the trial of
the suit.
(7) With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
30.06.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
The Principal District Judge,
Chengalpattu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.1230/2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
CRP.No.1230/2021
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
