The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 23.10.2009, passed in I.A.No.252 of 2008 in O.S.No.68 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.
2. The petitioner is the first defendant. It is seen that in the suit laid by the respondent / plaintiff, the petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree. Seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner had preferred an application. Inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 478 days in preferring the abovesaid application, seeking to condone the delay, the petitioner has come forward with an application in I.A.No.252 of 2008. According to the petitioner, inasmuch as he had been affected by jaundice, he was unable to appear in the Court and thereby, set ex parte and only in the month of February, 2008, after recovering from his ailment, he could meet his counsel and thereby, the delay had occurred and hence, prayed for the condonation of the delay. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. Per contra, the respondent contended that the reasons adduced by the petitioner for the delay are false and on the other hand, in the execution proceedings levied by the respondent, the petitioner had entered appearance and only thereafter, he had chosen to take steps to set aside the ex parte decree and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the application.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions putforth by the parties and the materials placed on record, was pleased to dismiss the application preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
5. The petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree in the suit laid by the respondent. Seeking to set aside the same, he has preferred the necessary application. However, as a delay of 478 days had occurred in preferring the abovesaid application, he has come forward with the abovesaid application to condone the delay. The only reason given by the petitioner for the huge and inordinate delay is that inasmuch he has has been suffering from jaundice, he was unable to appear in the Court and only after his recovery, he was able to meet his Advocate and taken steps to set aside the ex parte decree and thereby, the delay had occurred. When the abovesaid application of the petitioner and the reasons projected by him for the delay are stoutly http://www.judis.nic.in 4 repudiated by the respondent, still, the petitioner has not evinced interest to adduce acceptable and reliable evidence at least prima facie to establish the cause pleaded by him for the huge delay. In such view of the matter, the Court below is fully justified in rejecting the petitioner's cause as not coming within the definition of “sufficient cause” for the condonation of the delay.
6. In addition to that, as could be seen from the materials available on record, it is found that the respondent, following the decree granted in its favour, proceeded to execute the same and in the execution proceedings, it is found that the petitioner has entered appearance and only thereafter, he has chosen to come forward with the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. In such view of the matter, when it is noted that the petitioner has entered appearance in the execution proceedings in the year 2007 itself, to say that he could recover from the illness in the year 2008 and thereafter, taken steps to set aside the ex parte decree are found to be patently false and only adduced for the purpose of this application.
7. In the light of the above discussions, the Court below is justified in not accepting the petitioner's cause for the condonation of the delay and dismissing his application. No intervention is called for in the impugned order of the Court below.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.