This Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order refusing to condone a 924-day delay in applying to set aside an ex parte decree. The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the delay, warranting no interference.
The Civil Revision Petition is 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.
CRP(MD)No.658 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 17.06.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
CRP(MD)No.658 of 2012 (Through Video Conferencing)
A.Selvaraj ... Petitioner / Defendant
Vs
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed U/S 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 10.12.2011, made in EA.No.399 of 2010 in EP.No.123 of 2004 in OS.No.260 of 2002, by the I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Godwin For Respondent : Mr.V.Janakiramulu-R1 Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram for Mr.D.Nallathambi-R2
ORDER
1/3
CRP(MD)No.658 of 2012
the auction sale and it was resisted by the 2nd Respondent/auction purchaser by filing a counter. In and by the impugned order, the said EA was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Defendant.
2/3
CRP(MD)No.658 of 2012
normally tilt against the applicant, who seeks to condone the delay.
10.In this case, for want of materials, the court below had not accepted the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning the delay, as untenable. This Court also finds no proper and satisfactory explanation given by the Petitioner for each and every day of delay, by producing valid material evidence.
11.It is also pertinent to point out that pursuant to the exparte decree, the auction sale was conducted by the Court. Without challenging the exparte decree, the auction sale conducted by the Court cannot be put under challenge. The decree holder had also withdrawn the decreetal amount from and out of the sale consideration and if the auction sale is set aside, Respondents would be put to irreparable loss and injury. Even if the auction sale is set aside, no purpose would be served to the Petitioner.
12.To sum and substance, as stated above, the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning the delay given are in usual and casual terms. Unless the reasons assigned are bona fide and unless it is shown that there were bona fide efforts, there is no necessity to accept the usual explanations. There is no proper and satisfactory explanation offered by the Petitioner for each and every day of delay and as such, this Court is of the view that the court below was right in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, by the impugned order, which warrants no interference.
// True Copy //
Srcm
To
The I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.
+1 CC to M/s.C.GODWIN, Advocate (SR-21111[F] dated 05/07/2021) +1 CC to M/s.V.JANAKIRAMULU, Advocate (SR-21102[F] dated 02/07/2021) +1 CC to M/s.D.NALLATHAMBI, Advocate (SR-21103[F] dated 02/07/2021)
CRP(MD)No.658 of 2012 02.07.2021
RC (16.07.2021) 3P-5C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 924 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 should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Selvaraj
M/s.Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Corporation Limited
Sundaravalli
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
