The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order that rejected a prayer to condone a 6-year delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The court held the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause.
Civil Revision Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.
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.2214 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 15.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON: 09.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10342 of 2022
V.Ramraj : Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defendant
Vs.
C.Santhanakrishnan : Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.123 of 2018 in O.S.No.161 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
ORDER
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.123 of 2018 in O.S.No.161 of 2010, dated 04.02.2021, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
respondent has filed a counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Principal District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 04.02.2021, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the defendant has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.
was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiff on 29.06.2012, that since there was no representation on the defendant's side, he was called absent and set exparte on 29.06.2012, that the defendant has approached
the plaintiff and negotiated, that the plaintiff had agreed for mediation and stated that he will withdraw the suit claim, that since the suit claim was based on cable T.V., connection and sharing for different areas, the respondent / plaintiff promised to withdraw the suit on consulting the other cable T.V., operators, that the petitioner / defendant, believing the words of the respondent / plaintiff, has not proceeded with the suit, that though the exparte decree was passed on 29.06.2012, more than 20 other proceedings were initiated by the respondnet, that the defendant believed that the suit claim was settled upon the promise of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, that the defendant has received notice for execution of
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
the exparte decree during the month of March 2018, that the defendant has immediately approached the plaintiff and enquired about the settlement, but he was stating now and then and avoiding the defendant under some pretext or the other, that the defendant has a good case on trial, that the defendant will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if exparte decree is not set aside, that there occurred a delay of 2260 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree and judgment dated
29.06.2012, that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and that the defendant will be seriously put to loss and hardship, if the delay is not condoned.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
claim at any point of time, that there was no such mediation in this regard, that the suit claim is not based on the cable T.V., connection, that the plaintiff has not initiated 20 proceedings as mentioned by the defendant, that the intention of the defendant is only to drag on the matter endlessly, that the reason stated in the affidavit in support of the petition to condone the delay is not supported by any documentary evidence, that the defendant has not approached this Court with clean hands, that the reasons adduced by the defendant in the affidavit are not correct and not sufficient to condone the delay of 2260 days delay, that the defendant has to explain each and every day's delay and that the petitioner's present attempt is only to drag on the proceedings and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
that the plaintiff has agreed for mediation and stated that he will withdraw the suit claim. Except the above averments, the defendant has not elaborated anything further. The defendant has nowhere averred
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
what was the settlement negotiated, the mediation terms and the basis on which the plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the suit claim.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
09.02.2024
NCC : Yes : No Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No SSL
To
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
SSL
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN C.R.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2022
09.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial justice can be advanced by condoning a delay of 2260 days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.
Whether the revision petitioner assigned any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay to attract Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Ramraj
C.Santhanakrishnan
K Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
