This revision under Section 115 CPC challenged the dismissal of an application to condone a delay of over three years in setting aside an ex parte decree. The High Court found the excuse insufficient and dismissed the petition.
Civil revision petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CRP (NPD) No.3383 of 2014
&
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Sellamuthu ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Kuppusamy @ Mookan
2.Yasodha
3.Yogapriya
4.Raja ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure challenging the order and decreetal order dated
21.11.2013 passed in R.E.A.No.618 of 2012 in R.E.P.No.221 of 2008 in
O.S.No.642 of 1997 before the Additional District Munsif Court,
Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Varun Karthik for Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondents : No appearance
2
ORDER
The instant revision has been filed challenging the order
dated 21.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal in R.E.A.No.618 of 2012 in R.E.P.No.221 of 2008 in O.S.No.642
of 1997.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
3
District Munsif, Namakkal in O.S.No.642 of 1997 for restriction of
pathway as per the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2002 granted in O.S.No.642 of 1997. An ex parte decree dated 15.07.2009 was passed
against the petitioner in favour of the respondents 1 to 4. R.E.A.No.618 of 2012 in R.E.P.No.221 of 2008 in O.S.No.642 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 1172 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 15.07.2009 passed in R.E.P.No.221 of 2008. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of R.E.A.No.618 of 2012,
the reason given by the petitioner is that since the impleading applications were pending to implead the legal heirs of the decree
holder, they were unable to file an application earlier.
R.E.A.No.618 of 2012 denying the allegations of the petitioner. By order
dated 21.11.2013, the executing court dismissed R.E.A.No.618 of 2012 in
R.E.P.No.221 of 2008 in O.S.No.642 of 1997. Aggrieved by the dismissal of R.E.A.No.618 of 2012 in R.E.P.No.221 of 2008 in O.S.No.642 of 1997, the instant revision has been filed.
4
petitioner. Despite service of notice and the names of the respondents having been printed in the causelist today, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.
Discussion:
as seen from the impugned order, they had been continuously seeking
5
adjournments. Only thereafter, they were set ex parte on 15.07.2009 in
R.E.P.No.221 of 2008. However, they chose to file an application to
condone the delay of 1172 days in filing an application to set aside the ex
parte order dated 15.07.2009 instead of filing of an application to set aside the ex parte order immediately after they were set ex parte on
15.07.2009 itself.
Court has rightly held that no sufficient reasons have been given by the
petitioner for condoning this inordinate delay. This Court does not find
any infirmity in the order passed by the executing court and there is
absolutely no merit in this civil revision petition.
Conclusion:
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.07.2019
nl
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
6
nl
To
The Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.
CRP (NPD) No.3383 of 2014 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
18.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient reasons exist to condone an inordinate delay of 1172 days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of the application to condone delay has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sellamuthu
Kuppusamy @ Mookan
Yasodha
Yogapriya
Raja
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
