Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 18.04.2007, made in I.A.No.214 of 2006 in O.S.No.263 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
2. It is found that petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree in O.S.No.263 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai. Seeking to set aside the said ex parte decree passed against her, the petitioner has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 1650 days in preferring the said application, the petitioner has preferred an application in I.A.No.214 of 2006 to condone the said delay. The reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are that she having lost her husband and the respondent having given all sorts of trouble and harassment to her, she has been forced to leave her property and thereafter, taken care of by a Women Wing at Madurai and meanwhile, the respondent had initiated the suit proceedings against her and on account of her old age and illiteracy and as no one was available to take care of her interest, she was unable to concentrate in the case and not received any summons or notice in the execution proceedings and thereafter, with the help of the well wishers, she had engaged a counsel and come forward with an application to set aside the ex parte order passed in the execution proceedings and the same is pending and subsequently, she has come forward with the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her in the suit and as there is a delay in filing the said application, according to the petitioner, the present application has been laid to condone the delay.
3. The above said application has been stoutly resisted by the respondent contending that the reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are unacceptable and false and the case of the petitioner that on account of ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the respondent, she has been forced to leave her property is false and her further case that she has been taken care of by a Women Wing at Madurai and on account of her old age and illiteracy, she was unable to prosecute the suit proceedings and that she had not been served with notice in the execution proceedings and only thereafter, with the help of well-wishers, she had engaged a counsel and filed an application in the execution proceedings etc., are all false and made for the purpose of the case. It is further stated that the petitioner has not given any valid and acceptable cause for the condonation of the delay. It is further stated that as seen from the affidavit of the petitioner, she is in the care and custody of Arul Jothi Jewellers and at the instigation of the said Jewellers, the present application has been laid and the reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are false and unacceptable and despite the knowledge about the proceedings, the petitioner did not contest the suit and hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, did not find acceptance with the case of the petitioner and dismissed the application. Impugning 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. To set aside the said ex parte decree, she has preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 1650 days in preferring the said application, an application in I.A.No.214 of 2006 has come to be instituted. The reasons given for the condonation of the delay are that on account of ill-treatment and harassment caused by the respondent, the petitioner was forced to leave her property and migrated to Madurai and living under the care and custody of the Women Wing and on account of old age and illiteracy, she was unable to defend the suit diligently and thereafter come forward with the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit proceedings, hence, the delay. The above reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay are stoutly resisted by the respondent as false and unacceptable.
6. Despite the above position, the petitioner has not evinced interest to place any material to substantiate her alleged cause for the condonation of the delay. The petitioner herself has not cared to enter into the witness box to substantiate her case. With regard to her cause that she had been ill-treated and harassed by the respondent, it is found that no material worth acceptance has been placed by the petitioner. If really the allegations are true, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner would have preferred necessary complaint against the respondent in the manner known to law. However, there is no such recourse taken by the petitioner. Therefore, her further case is that she has been forced to leave her property on account the above said action of the respondent as such cannot be accepted in any manner. It is found that according to the petitioner, she had migrated to Madurai and living under the care and custody of the Women Wing and on account of her old age and illiteracy, she was unable to defend the suit proceedings initiated by the respondent. Therefore, from the above plea, it is evident that the petitioner is aware of the suit proceedings initiated against her by the respondent and in such view of the matter, it is found that as a prudent lady, she should have taken appropriate steps to defend the matter. However, her plea that on account of old age and illiteracy, she was unable to defend the proceedings properly as such cannot be readily accepted sans acceptable proof with reference to the same. Though the petitioner claims to be in the custody of a Women Wing in Madurai, her affidavit would go to show that she is under the care and custody of Arul Jothi Jewellers. Now, according to the respondent, only at the instigation of the above said Jewellers, the present application has been laid. To controvert the same, the petitioner has not endeavoured to adduce evidence. The reasons for the same are also not forth coming on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore, highly doubtful whether the reasons now given by the petitioner for not defending the suit proceedings are true and genuine. As seen above, the petitioner is aware of the suit initiated by the respondent and therefore to say that for the past four years, she was unable to take steps with reference to the suit proceedings as such cannot be accepted, particularly, when the alleged cause pleaded by her has been stoutly resisted by the respondent. It is, therefore, found that the Court below had rightly considered the case in the proper perspective and accordingly, found that the petitioner though being aware of the suit proceedings, had deliberately left the matter to go for ex parte and subsequently, after a long period, has come forward with the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her, without any justifiable cause. Accordingly, it is found that as rightly determined by the Court below, inasmuch as the petitioner has not given any cause for the huge delay, she is unable to place any material to substantiate the said cause. In such view of the matter, it is found that the Court below had dismissed the application of the petitioner giving sound and valid reasons. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court.
7. Resultanlty, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai.
.