Civil revision petition against an order dismissing a petition to condone a 287-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree. The High Court found the impugned order fair and decreetal, finding no illegality or infirmity.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with 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.
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018 and CMP No.4797 of 2018
Jeyaram Achari ... Petitioner
Vs
Savithri Ammal ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 24.11.2017 made in I.A.No.513 of 2015 in RCOP No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Srilekha
For Respondent : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and
decreetal order dated 24.11.2017 made in I.A.No.513 of 2015 in RCOP
No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar,
Tiruvannamalai District, thereby dismissing the petition to condone the
delay of 287 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
1/5
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018
passed against the petitioner. After coming to know about the same, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree with a delay of
287 days.
2/5
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018
present Rent Control proceedings, immediately, after receipt of the notice, he was duly appeared on 22.02.2013 before the Rent Controller. Thereafter, on several hearings, he appeared and sought time for filing counter. Therefore, the Trial Court posted the matter for filing counter on 25.09.2013 and on that date he was absent. Hence, he was set ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was posted for recording of ex-parte evidence on 02.04.2014 and on that day, the ex-parte decree was passed. In fact, he also filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of 2009 for bare injunction, in which he appeared before the same Court on several hearings and when he appeared on 29.01.2014, he was partly cross-examined and on 25.03.2014 he was fully cross-examined in the said suit. Even thereafter, he appeared in O.S.No.121 of 2009 on 02.04.2014, 07.04.2014, 11.04.2014, 22.04.2014, 03.06.2014, 04.06.2014, 11.06.2014, 17.06.2014, 20.06.2014, 24.06.2014 and 30.06.2014. In fact, during his cross examination in O.S.No.121of 2009, he categorically admitted
that in the rent control proceedings he was set ex-parte. Therefore, the petitioner filed a false affidavit stating false reasons. Hence, the petitioner failed to state sufficient reasons for the delay of 287 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition to condone the delay of 287 days in filing
3/5
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018
the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
22.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lpp
To
The Principal District Munsif Court,
Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
4/5
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018
lpp
CRP (NPD) No.873 of 2018
and CMP No.4797 of 2018
22.04.2021
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the petition to condone delay was legally infirm.
Whether the petitioner failed to state sufficient reasons for the 287-day delay in setting aside the ex-parte decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jeyaram Achari
Savithri Ammal
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
