Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Govindharaj vs Selvaraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 14893 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14893 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2022

Madras High Court
Govindharaj vs Selvaraj on 6 September, 2022
                                                                               C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020
                                                                                and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 06.09.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
                                                    C.R.P.(NPD).769 of 2020
                                                             and
                                                    C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020


                     Govindharaj                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.

                     Selvaraj                                                    ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
                     Civil Procedure against the orders dated 29.07.2019 passed in
                     I.A.No.1141 of 2018 in O.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate
                     Judge, Kallakurichi.

                                   For Petitioner            : Mr.R.Agilesh for
                                                                Mr.T.Dhanasekaran


                                                         JUDGMENT

The present revision petition is filed against the order passed in

I.A.No.1141 of 2018 in O.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate

Judge, Kallakurichi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020

2. The suit in O.S.No.24/2013 was filed by the

respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money due under a promissory note.

The revision petitioner/defendant filed a written statement stating that he

did not receive any amount from the plaintiff. Subsequently, after

framing of issues in the suit, the suit was posted for trial on 06.07.2015,

on which date the defendant did not appear before the Court and

therefore, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on the

same date. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a execution petition

in E.P.No.66/2016 for arresting the revision petitioner/defendant in the

year 2016. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/defendant filed a petition to

set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.24/2013 along with a

petition in I.A.No.1141/2018 to condone the delay of 446 days in filing

the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. After full contest, the said

petition was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi,

vide his order dated 29.07.2019. The main contention of the revision

petitioner in I.A.No.1141/2018 was that he was bedridden due to

jaundice and that he was taking native treatment. The learned

Subordinate Judge observed that the revision petitioner did not adduce

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020

any documentary evidence to show that he was suffering from jaundice

for more than 1½ years and dismissed the application. Aggrieved over

the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

defendant.

3. Though the notice was served on the respondent and his

name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of

the respondent.

4. Heard, Mr.R.Agilesh learned counsel for the revision

petitioner. His contention is that since the petitioner was taking native

treatment he could not adduce any documentary evidence and this has

not been taken into account by the learned Subordinate Judge,

Kallakurichi.

5. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act each day's delay has

to be explained and in the instant case, the revision petitioner had filed

his written statement and when the matter was posted for trial, he did not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020

appear before the Court. He did not even make any attempt to contact his

counsel on record and only after filing of execution petition by the

plaintiff, he approached the Court and filed the petition to set aside the

ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.24/2013 along with petition in

I.A.No.1141/2018 to condone delay.

6. In the circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the trial

Court, the revision petitioner wants to drag on the proceedings as far as

possible. In any event the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for

condoning the delay of 446 days in filing the petition under Order IX

Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances, the

revision petition fails and is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD).No.769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020

R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl

To The Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi.

C.R.P.(NPD).769 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.4095 of 2020

06.09.2022

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter