This revision is filed against the order passed by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappali refusing to condone the delay of 581 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.
2. O.S.No.682 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent herein against the revision petitioner/defendant for recovery of Rs.2,98,997-95. The revision petitioner appeared and filed a statement and when the case was posted for cross-examination of PW1, the defendant was set exparte and exparte decree was passed and after the delay of 581 days, the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte decree stating that due to business work, he had gone to Chennai during the relevant period and only after the receipt of summons in E.P.No.760 of 2005, he came to know about he exparte decree and filed this application. The respondent objected the condonation of delay and submitted that no acceptable reasons have been stated for condoning the delay of 581 days and the reasons stated by the revision petitioner that he had gone to Chennai in connection with his business work and hence he could not contact his Advocate can not be believed. The lower Court accepting the contention of the respondent, dismissed the application holding that the delay was not properly explained. Against that, this revision is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in the written statement, he has denied the liability and he was also diligent in defending his case and due to urgent business work, he had gone to Chennai and thereafter he failed to contact his counsel and he was not aware that the case was posted for trial. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that only after receipt of summons he came to know about the exparte decree and immediately he filed the application to condone the delay.
4. The respondent filed caveat and Mr.K.S.Vamsidhar the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower Court after considering the allegations rightly held that the delay has not been properly explained and therefore the revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. According to me, it is not disputed that the application was filed immediately on receipt of summons in the E.P. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the posting of the case for trial and he had gone to Chennai in connection with his business work and only after the receipt of summons in E.P, he came to know that the exparte decree has been passed against him can be accepted.
6. It is admited that immediately on receipt of summons in E.P. he has filed this application. Further, the suit is for recovery of money and therefore in my opinion, this revision can be allowed on condition of depositing a sum of Rs.1 lakh by the revision petitioner before the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappali in O.S.No.682 of 1997 on or before 31.1.2010, failing which the order of the lower Court shall stand confirmed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the application to set aside the exparte decree within a period of two weeks after the deposit of Rs.1 lakh by the revision petitioner and in case, the exparte decree is set aside, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six weeks thereafter.
With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also closed.
kr.
To The Principal Sub Judge, Trichy.