Madras High Court
Salammal vs Govindaraj on 22 June, 2022
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
Salammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
Govindaraj ... Respondent
Prayer :
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to
set aside the order dated 19.09.2017 in I.A.No.312 of 2017 in O.S.No.40 of
2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Munusamy
For Respondent : Mr.Arun Anbumani
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure code to set aside the order dated 19.09.2017 in I.A.No.312 of
2017 in O.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif,
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The respondent, who is the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.40 of
2013 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner / 3rd defendant
and other defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the property. The trial commenced and the respondent
putforth his contentions. After hearing the respondent in full, perusing the
documents filed by the petitioner, viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and the evidences
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on granting sufficient opportunities to the
defendants to putforth their case, the defendants had not evinced any
interest to get along with the suit either by way of filing written statement or
by way of representing throug counsel and hence the the trial court framed
the necessary issues for consideration. Since the defendants did not turn
up, inspite of granting sufficient opportunities to putforth their case, the
defendants were set exparte and exparte evidence was recorded. The court
below taking note of the fact that there is no written statement filed and that
there is no represention on behalf of the petitioner and other defendants,
exparte decree was granted in favour of the respondent by considering the
documents as well as evidences on 29.04.2015. Seeking to condone the
delay of 626 days in setting aside the said exparte decree, the petitioner / 3 rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
defendant, has filed a petition in I.A.No.312 of 2017. The said petition was
dismissed by the court below by observing that there is no specific reasons
stated by the petitioner for occurrence of delay of 626 days in preferring the
petition to set aside exparte decree and the only reason ascribed by the
petitioner is that she was out of station on account of business commitment
and hence there occurred a delay. Further, the trial court also observed that
as per Section 5 of Limitation Act, each and every day delay should be
properly explained. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come up
with the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court
below failed to consider that the petitioner's legitimate right, would be
defeated if the petition to condone the delay of 626 days in filing the petition
to set aside the exparte decree is not allowed. Unless the exparte decree is
set aside, the petitioner will be put to untold hardships and damages, hence
pleaded to allow the present revision.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that the trial court has passed an exparte order only after granting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and the defendants therein to put
their case, however, the defendants have failed to do so and now, seeking
to set aside the said exparte order is only to drag on the proceedings,
thereby pleaded to dismiss the revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents placed on record.
6. On scrutinising the documents on record, it is clear that while
passing Judgment and decree in O.S.No.40 of 2013, the trial court has
granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioner / 3rd defendant and other
defendants therein to put forth their case, however, they have failed to do so
and therefore, the defendants were setexparte on 09.07.2013 and the
exparte order was passed on 29.04.2015, nearly, after two years, that too
after considering the documents and after examining the witnesses.
Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an application seeking to condone
the delay of 626 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree on
10.02.2017, almost after two years from the date of grant of exparte order
and the reason attributed by the petitioner is that the defendants were out of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
station, viz., to Karnataka on account of business commitment, however,
there is no specific document produced to substantiate such contention,
hence the court below rightly held that the said reason attributed by the
petitioner is not up to the satisifaction of the court and thereby, dismissed
the said petition, which, this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity
in the order warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
22.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
To
1. The learned District Munsif,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
J. NISHA BANU, J.,
ssd
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4508 of 2017 &
C.M.P.No.21275 of 2017
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
