Madras High Court
V.Subbiah Pandian ... Revision vs Suzlon Gujarat Wind Park Limited on 5 July, 2022
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
V.Subbiah Pandian ... Revision Petitioner
Vs.
Suzlon Gujarat Wind Park Limited,
registered under Company's Act 1956,
and having office at
Door No.5, Sri Malai Society,
near Krishna Commercial Complex,
Navarangapura, Ahamadabad,
through its Authorised Signatory Iyyakutty,
S/o.Nambi Jeevanantham,
residing at
Door No.85/1B, Plot No.123,
20th Cross Street,
Balabackiya Nagar,
Tirunelveli Junction. ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 07.04.2014 passed in
I.A.No.11 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional
District Judge, Tirunelveli.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair and
decreetal order passed in I.A.No.11 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2012 on
07.04.2014 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The said Interlocutory Application was filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act by the petitioner/defendant to condone the delay of 163 days
in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree passed by the III
Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, in O.S.No.30 of 2012 dated
11.03.2013. The suit was filed by the respondent for declaration and
permanent injunction. For filing written statement, the petitioner/defendant
took nine adjournments, but he has not filed any written statement.
Therefore, the defendant was set ex-parte on 27.08.2012. Thereafter, the
petitioner/defendant has filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order on
25.09.2012 and the same was ordered. The case was posted for trial on
21.01.2013. On that day, P.W.1 was examined-in-chief, however, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
defendant did not cross-examine P.W.1 and he took several adjournments.
On 07.02.2013, the counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant reported no
instructions and therefore, he was set ex-parte. On 14.02.2013, the trial
Court heard the arguments of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in favour of
the plaintiff on 11.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an
application to set aside the ex-parte decree in I.A.No.11 of 2014 with a
delay of 163 days. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on
the ground that the petitioner has not assigned any valid reason for
condoning the delay.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is having a good case, however, he was not provided with an
opportunity to defend his suit. P.W.1 was not cross-examined on that day,
due to the mistake of the learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned counsel reported no instructions without
informing the petitioner/defendant. On the same set of facts, the petitioner
was arrested pursuant to a criminal case registered against him. Therefore,
he could not contact his counsel and follow up the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
though the delay is 163 days, the Court has to consider the manner in which
the matter has been protracted. The learned counsel has drawn the attention
of this Court the manner in which the petitioner has created the forged
documents, for which, a criminal case is pending against the
petitioner/defendant in Crime No.32 of 2012 on the file of the District
Crime Branch, Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467,
468, 471 IPC. The Investigation Agency has found materials against the
petitioner and filed a final report. The petitioner has created a forged
document with regard to the suit schedule property by impersonating a
woman and created a power deed in the year 2009. With the strength of
power deed, he has also created a subsequent sale deed and as power agent,
he has also purchased the property. The petitioner has adopted the tactics to
delay the suit proceedings and the reasons assigned in the petition are not
genuine. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is the defendant in
O.S.No.30 of 2012. Though the trial Court has provided opportunities to the
petitioner to defend his case, he has failed to file the written statement, for
which, he was set ex-parte on 27.08.2012. Thereafter, a petition to set aside
the ex-parte order was filed on 25.09.2012 and the same was ordered. The
suit was taken up for trial on 21.01.2013. During the trial, the plaintiff was
examined in chief, however, the petitioner herein/defendant has not cross-
examined the plaintiff/respondent herein. Thereafter, the defendant's
counsel reported no instructions. Based on that, the trial Court has recorded
further evidence of P.W.1, heard the arguments of the plaintiff and decreed
the suit. After the decree, the application has been filed to condone the delay
of 163 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and
judgment passed by the trial Court on 11.03.2013. Not satisfying with the
reasons assigned in the petition, the trial Court has dismissed the application
filed by the petitioner. In the present case also, the petitioner has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
assigned any valid reason to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.11 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2012 on 07.04.2014 by the learned III
Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order of the trial Court. However, if the petitioner is
having a legal right, he can establish the same in the manner known to law.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
05.07.2022
ssb
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
To
III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1522 of 2014
05.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
