The High Court of Madras dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The court found no infirmity as the petitioner continued to watch proceedings without moving to set aside the order prior to the trial.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
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 : 06.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.R.P.(PD).No.425 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.2876 of 2019
N. Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
Vs
Pavayi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 06.12.2018 made in I.A.No.2924 of 2018 in O.S.No.212 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavani, Erode District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Anandha Murthy
2
ORDER
The above application is filed challenging the order of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, in I.A.No.2924 of 2018 in O.S.No.212 of 2013, in and by
which the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, to set
aside the ex parte order passed against him on 10.11.2016.
2.The only reason that is given, seeking to set aside the
above ex parte decree is that several amendments had taken
place and therefore, the ex parte order has to be set aside and that he has to counter the amendments that had been made by the plaintiff to the original Plaint. A perusal of the amended
Plaint would show that the amendments had been made only after the revision petitioners/defendants had been set ex parte. It is further seen that from 10.11.2016, the revision petitioner has been watching the proceedings without moving a little finger
3
to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. Though the learned Judge was continuing with the proceedings for hearing of the suit, the impugned application has been moved only when the matter was posted for trial and two orders have been passed against him. Thereafter, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the said ex parte order dated 10.11.2016. The learned District Munsif has rightly rejected the said petition. I find no infirmity in the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavani, Erode District in I.A.No.2924 of 2018 in O.S.No.212 of 2013.
This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.02.2019
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mps
4
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
To
The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bhavani,
Erode District.
C.R.P.(PD).No.425 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.2876 of 2019
06.02.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner was entitled to set aside the ex parte order given the delay and continued absence during the pending suit.
Whether the lower court committed an infirmity in rejecting the application to set aside the ex parte order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N. Senthilkumar
Pavayi
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
