Revision petition filed to set aside an order dismissing an application to condone delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree. The High Court found no sufficient cause for delay and dismissed the revision as there was no illegality in the lower court's order.
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.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.4134 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.22777 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.R.P.(NPD) No.4134 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.22777 of 2018
1.Mathialagan,
2.Punitha. ... Petitioners
Vs.
V.Maruthachalam ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated
14.09.2018 made in I.A.No.308 of 2017 in O.S.No.1895 of 2009 on the
file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and to allow
the above Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prabakaran. For Respondent : Mr.A.Deivasigamani.
Page No.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.4134 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.22777 of 2018
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by
the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, passed in I.A.No.308 of 2017 in O.S.No.1895 of 2009.
2.The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money based on a promissory note. Though a written statement was filed on 06.08.2010, they did not take part in the subsequent proceedings, hence an ex-parte decree was passed on 12.11.2013. The present application has been filed to condone the delay of 1105 days in preferring the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4.A perusal of the records would reveal that based on the ex-
parte decree dated 12.11.2013, an execution petition in E.P.No.65 of 2015, was filed for recovery of the amount. The petitioners/defendants
Page No.2/4
C.R.P.(NPD)No.4134 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.22777 of 2018
filed their vakalat on 11.03.2016 in the Execution Petition and after lapse of ten months, this application was filed to condone the delay. The learned Trial Judge having held that no explanation have been offered by the petitioners for the delay of ten months, dismissed the petition. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay.
5.In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.308 of 2017 in O.S.No.1895 of 2009. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Speaking order / Non Speaking Order
rm
Page No.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.4134 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.22777 of 2018
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
rm
To
The II Additional District Munsif,
Coimbatore.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4134 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.22777 of 2018
05.08.2021
Page No.4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Whether there exists any illegality or infirmity in the order dismissing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Mathialagan and Another
V. Maruthachalam
K Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
