The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The court held the lower court's findings on dilatory tactics were justified and no case was made for revision interference.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is 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.
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P(MD) No.2085 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD) No.10859 of 2019
A.Sobha ...Petitioner
Vs.
F.John Narchesan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.08.2019 passed in E.A.No.5 of 2019 in E.P.No.110 of 2018 in O.S.No.35 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
1/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thiruvarutselvan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Kannan
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed in E.A.No.5 of 2019 in E.P.No.110 of 2018 in O.S.No.35 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
petitioner and Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record.
respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
2/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
that the learned Principal District Judge, failed to consider that the Execution Petition filed by the respondent only based on the exparte order and the ex-parte order also challenged by the petitioner by filing necessary application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and a petition to set aside the ex-parte order and those petitions are still pending. When the said petitions are pending, without issuing any notice or intimation to the petitioner with an intention to cheat the petitioner, the respondent mentioned the wrong address of the petitioner and cheated the trial Court and obtained ex-parte decree.
respondent approached the Court with unclean hands. The Lower Court ought to have allowed the application to set aside the ex-parte order, since the disputed property is the only dwelling house and the petitioner is no other way to reside except the property.
3/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
against the said decree and it has become final. Subsequently, the respondent filed Execution Petition. In the Execution Petition, the petitioner was set ex-parte . Thereafter, the petitioner came up with a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 11.07.2019. The Execution Court holding that the reasons stated by the petitioner therein are not satisfied to set aside the ex-parte order dated 11.07.2019, as the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the said petition, dismissed the E.A.No.5 of 2019, by order, dated 09.08.2019.
submits that the Execution Court having considered all aspects passed the order and interference of this Court under the Civil Revision Petition is not warranted and sought to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
4/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
counsels and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the suit filed by respondent in O.S.No.35 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumar at Nagercoil, was decreed on 11.12.2017. At the time of passing the decree, the Trial Court granted time to the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein to hand over the possession of the petition mentioned property to the plaintiff on or before 10.02.2018. Admittedly, the decree has become final, as no appeal is filed. Inspite of sufficient opportunity is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner did not turn up. Accordingly, the petitioner was set exparte on 30.06.2019 and ex-parte order was passed on 11.07.2019.
5/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
wrong doer under the existing system of administration of civil litigation came down heavily to slap the exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/-, the Execution Court came to an opinion that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the deliberate and calculated strategies designated by the petitioner to over reach the majesty of Courts and the petitioner's ilk could not and should not be permitted to eat into the precious judicial time of the Court, the Execution Court held that the petitioner therein is not entitled for the relief and dismissed the E.A.No.5 of 2019, by order, dated 09.08.2019.
to the notice of this Court that the possession of the suit schedule property is not handed over to the respondent till now.
the case, it is clear that the petitioner is making every effort to drag on the proceedings without permitting the respondent to enjoy the fruits of the decree which is not permitted under law.
6/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
failed to make out any case and failed to show sufficient reason seeking interference of this Court in the Civil Revision Petition.
dismissed.
Petition is closed.
10.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM
To
The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
7/8
C.R.P(MD)No.2085 of 2019
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
RM
C.R.P(MD) No.2085 of 2019
10.10.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the execution court's order dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Whether the petitioner succeeded in making out a case for interference in the revision petition.
Whether the execution court was justified in deprecating the petitioner's dilatory tactics in pending proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramaparameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala DeviReferred¶40
2013 (3) LW - 97
A.Sobha
F.John Narchesan
Battu Devanand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
