Madras High Court
K.Venkatachalam vs R.Periyasamy on 18 April, 2022
1 Rev.Appln.No.166 /2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Rev.Appln.No. 166 of 2021
and
CMP.No. 18664 of 2021
K.Venkatachalam ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
R.Periyasamy ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with 114
of CPC, against the order of the Hon'ble High Court by dismissing the
Civil Revision Petition in CRP(NPD).No. 561 of 2021 by the Hon'ble
Mr.Justice C.V.Karthikeyan dated 13.07.2021.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Varnesh
For Respondent : Mr. T.L.Thirumalaisamy
ORDER
This review has been filed seeking re-visitation of an order dated
13.07.2021 in C.R.P.(NPD).No. 561 of 2021 passed by me.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The said Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115
of CPC seeking interference of an order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the
learned Principal Sub Judge, at Namakkal in I.A.No. 2 of 2019 in O.S.No.
250 of 2007.
3. O.S.No. 250 of 2007 had been filed by the respondent
R.Periyasamy against the review petitioner K.Venkatachalam seeking a
Judgment and Decree directing the defendant therein / review petitioner
herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,48,400/- which comprised of principal amount
of Rs.2/- lakhs and balance towards interest and also to pay costs. The suit
was based on the averment that a promissory note had been executed by
the revision petitioner herein on 12.01.2005. A written statement had been
filed by the revision petitioner. Thereafter, a Judgment was passed by the
Principal Sub Judge at Namakal on 20.02.2015, whereby holding the
revision petitioner exparte, the suit was decreed.
4. Thereafter, I.A.No. 2 of 2019 came to be filed by the review
petitioner herein seeking to condone the delay of 1451 days to set aside
the exparte Judgment and decree. That application was dismissed by an
order dated 14.02.2020, necessitating filing of the present Revision
Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).No. 561 of 2021 before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The said Civil Revision Petition came up for consideration before
me on 13.07.2021 and by an order of even date, the Revision Petition was
dismissed. The present Review has been filed seeking to re-visitation of
the said order.
6. Heard Mr.S.Varnesh, learned counsel for the review petitioner /
revision petitioner and also Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned counsel for
the respondent both in the review petition and in the revision petition.
7. Though it is urged that the reasons for the delay had not been
properly appreciated by the trial Court and this Court had affirmed such
findings, it is further urged that the review applicant is now prepared to
pay the principal amount atleast to the credit of the suit to avoid bringing a
valuable property for sale and therefore, the order passed in the revision
petition should be reviewed by this Court.
8. Order 47 of CPC lays down the grounds on which a review
application can be maintained and among various grounds it had been
urged that the presentation of a new fact which had not been brought to the
notice of this Court can be a reasonable circumstance to seek review of an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order. In the grounds of review, the petitioner had stated that it had been
pleaded that the promissory note itself is not enforceable, and it had also
been stated that the reasons advanced for the delay had not been properly
examined either by the trial Court or in the revision.
9. The ground raised relating to the promissory note, I am afraid,
would not be proper ground to review the order in the revision petition
since the promissory note had been marked as document during the course
of trial and while being marked had passed the tests of admissibility,
relevancy and had been proved in the manner known to law and therefore,
obligation of the review petitioner to honour the decree becomes more
crystalised.
10. However I would venture to review the order passed on
13.07.2021 in C.R.P.(NPD).No. 561 of 2021 and recall the said order
owing to the fact that the review petitioner had now offered to deposit the
a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs to the credit of the execution petition which is now
pending. That would in the interest of both the parties, and in my opinion
would put an end to the adversial litigation and draw both the parties to the
drawing table to talk about the possibility of a settlement. In this case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offer made by Mr.S.Varanesh that the review applicant is prepared to
deposit a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs to the credit of the execution petition in
E.P.No. 80 of 2015 is recorded.
11. Mr. T.L.Thiruvamalaisamy, learned counsel for the respondent
however stated that this amount is only a small portion of the total claim
which claim had multiplied owing to the interest which had accrued during
the course of the litigation.
12. But let me hold over any discussion on that particular aspect and
rather review my own order dated 13.07.2021 in C.R.P.(NPD).No. 561 of
2021. The effect of such review would be that the order dated 14.02.2020
in I.A.No. 2 of 2019 is set aside and the review petitioner is permitted to
move a further application seeking to set aside the exparte decree. But that
application should be viewed with circumspection by the learned Trial
Court owing to the fact that the review applicant has now come forward to
settle the entire issue. Therefore, let the said application to set aside the
exparte decree be kept in abeyance and kept in hold.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The review applicant should deposit on or before 06.06.2016 to
the credit of E.P.No. 80 of 2015 a sum of Rs.3/- lakhs and the said amount
if deposited should be transferred an interest earning bank account in any
Nationalised Bank by the Sub Judge, Namakkal. The learned Sub Judge
may then proceed to adjudicate the issue on the interest and costs payable
by the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No. 80 of 2015 and come to a just decision
on the same. Such decision should be reached on or before 31.07.2022. Till
such decision is rendered, let any coercive action with respect to the
property be kept in abeyance.
14. The Review Petition is allowed and the order in
C.R.P.(NPD).No. 561 of 2021 dated 13.07.2021 is interfered with and
recalled and I.A.No. 2 of 2019 is allowed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
18.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
vsg
Speaking order : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
Rev.Appln.No. 166 of 2021
and
CMP.No. 18664 of 2021
18.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
