P.Mohan vs K.Govindasamy
2021 Latest Caselaw 21924 Mad

                                                                       C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 02.11.2021

                                                         CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                            C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019
                                             and C.M.P.No.5932 of 2019

                  P.Mohan                                                    .. Petitioner

                                                          Vs
                  K.Govindasamy                                             ..Respondent



                  Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
                  India praying to set aside the docket order passed in I.A.No.273 of 2017 in
                  O.S.No.130 of 2015 dated 12.12.2019 on the file of the Sub Court,
                  Krishnagiri.


                                        For Petitioner     :     Mr.M.Velmurugan
                                        For Respondent     :     No Appearance

                                                         ORDER

The revision is directed against the docket order dated 12.12.2018

made in I.A.No.273 of 2017 in O.S.No.130 of 2018, dismissing the condone

delay petition filed to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 25.09.2015.

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

C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the

conditional order passed by this Court on 07.03.2019, the petitioner has

deposited a part of the suit claim of Rs.6,00,000/- before the trial Court on

02.04.2019, for which, a receipt has also been filed to that effect before the

Registry.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

records. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

4. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.130 of

2015 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money. As per the

contention of the petitioner/defendant, notice has not been served on him in

time to defend the case and it was addressed to the School where he was

working. Hence, he was not aware of the suit proceedings, and the suit came

to be decreed ex-parte on 25.09.2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate

Judge, Krishnagiri. Thereafter, to execute the decree, the respondent/plaintiff

filed E.P.No.5 of 2016, in which, notice was served on the

petitioner/defendant along with auction proceedings. On receiving the said

notice, the revision petitioner came to know about the ex-parte decree.

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

C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019

Immediately, he took steps to set aside the ex-parte decree, however, the

delay of 493 days occurred. Thereafter, he filed a petition to condone the

delay of 493 days in filing the application in I.A.No.273 of 2017 and the

same was contested by the respondent herein. On hearing both sides, the trial

Court dismissed the said application.

5. The trial Court observed that the property was already auctioned

in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.5 of 2016, wherein, the revision

petition remained ex-parte and the property was sold to one Dr.Rajasekar for

a valid sale consideration and at the stage of confirmation of sale, the

revision petitioner has filed R.E.A.No.243243 of 2018 for setting aside the

sale and the same is pending. Further, the trial Court found that the

petitioner has not given any acceptable reasons for condoning the delay, and

accordingly, the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same,

the Judgment Debtor/defendant preferred this revision petition.

6. At the time of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner/defendant would submit that the defendant is having a

good case to succeed his claim before the trial Court. Since the notice was

not served on him with correct address, he remained ex-parte before the trial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019

Court and the Execution Court proceedings and his absence on those days is

neither wilful nor wanton. The property in question is worth about 4 crores,

but it was auctioned for less value. Further, the revision petitioner would

also submit that as per the direction issued by this Court, he had deposited a

sum of Rs.6,00,000/- into the trial Court and he was always intended to

conduct the suit before the trial Court and that the delay may be condoned.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the

fact that the revision petitioner is the teacher by profession and the property

in question is an agricultural land, which is worth about more than 4 crores,

but it was auctioned for less value, in order to give fair opportunity to the

revision petitioner/defendant to defend his claim before the trial Court, this

Court is inclined to condone the delay to set aside the ex-parte decree.

Accordingly, the order dated 12.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.273 of 2017 in

O.S.No.130 of 2015 is set aside. It is stated that the petitioner/defendant also

filed the written statement. Hence, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the

suit in O.S.No.130 of 2015, within a period of 3 months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

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

C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019

8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.11.2021

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No srn

To

The Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

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

C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

srn

C.R.P (NPD). No.911 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.5932 of 2019

02.11.2021

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