This Civil Revision petition has been field against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in I.A.No.62 of 2013 in unnumbered A.S.No... 2013 filed challenging the judgement and decree in O.S.No.204 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.
2. The petitioner is second defendant in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai. The respondent, who is the plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of money. In the said suit the the petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 30.04.2001.
3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.62 of 2013 to condone the delay of 4246 days in filing the first appeal. According to the petitioner, she was suffering from jaundice and her previous Advocate did not conduct the case properly and did not advise her properly. The delay in filing a petition is neither wilful nor wanton. The respondent filed counter and opposed the said application and contended that the petitioner is second defendant in the suit and she is sister of first defendant, who borrowed money from the respondent and executed mortgage creating charge over the property and security for due repayment. The first defendant did not pay the amount. When the mortgage was in force, the petitioner purchased the property on 26.04.1993 from the first defendant who is her brother. The first defendant did not pay the amount due to the respondent. The respondent filed O.S.No.204 of 2000 for recovery of money. In the suit, summons were served on both the first defendant and petitioner. The first defendant entered appearance through Advocate one M.M.Pandian. Subsequently, he did not file written statement. Therefore, ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 30.04.2001. The respondent filed I.A.No.633 of 2003 for passing of final decree, for sale of the property mortgaged. The petitioner entered appearance through one Advocate S.S.Raman, but, he did not file any counter therefore, final decree was passed in the said application.
4. The respondent filed E.P.No.10 of 2008. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioner entered appearance through one Advocate Mr.P. Saravanan, and filed I.A.No.709 of 2008 to condone the delay of 1245 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed on 08.09.2008. Against that, the petitioner filed CRP(MD).No.2195 of 2008 before this Court. The said Civil Revision Petition was also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner filed various applications to prevent the respondent to execute the decree obtained by him. All the applications were dismissed. After CMA.No.1 of 2010 and CMSA.No.15 of 2013 filed by the petitioner were also dismissed by the first appellate Court and this Court, the property was sold in the Court auction after following the procedure and the sale certificate was issued and delivery was effected. The property is in the possession of Court auction purchaser. In the E.P.No.16 of 2012 filed for delivery by the Court auction purchaser, the petitioner entered appearance through her husband who is practising as an Advocate, after retiring from the Government Service and conducted the Execution Petition. After contest delivery was ordered. The respondent contended that petitioner conducted the case in every stage and the reason given by the petitioner is contrary to the facts and it is not valid.
5. Before the learned Judge, the petitioner examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and marked three documents. The respondent did not let in any oral evidence and marked nine documents during cross examination.
6. The learned judge considering the admission of petitioner's husband about the participation in various proceedings filed by the petitioner and respondent and Court auction purchaser dismissed the application holding that reason given by the petitioner is not valid to condone the delay.
7. Against the said order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he cannot argue the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that he has filed review against the order dated 20.12.2016 in CMA.No.973 of 2016. At his request, Civil Revision Petition was posted on 27.02.2017. Again when the matter was posted today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he cannot argue the Civil Revision Petition in view of the filing of the review petition against the order passed in in CMA.No.973 of 2016.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the materials available on record.
10. From the records it is seen that the petitioner has participated in all the proceedings filed by the respondent and Court auction purchaser and filed various applications to prevent the respondent from executing the decree. The petitioner's husband only appeared in the Execution Petition filed by the Court auction purchaser for delivery of the property purchased by her. All the applications filed by the petitioner in the suit as well as in the Execution Petition were dismissed and Civil Revision Petition, the appeal filed by the petitioner were also dismissed. The petitioner after having failed in her attempt to prevent the respondent in executing the decree, filed the first appeal after 12 years of the order passed in the suit with petition to condone the delay of 4426 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree, suppressing all the above facts. In the evidence before the learned Judge, petitioner's husband who was examined as PW.1 has admitted all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner and dismissal of the said proceedings. The learned Judge has considered all the materials on record in a proper perspective and dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. In such circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court.
11. The reason given by learned counsel for petitioner for refusing to argue the Civil Revision Petition is not valid and acceptable. The intention of the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings and only with malafide intention the learned counsel for petitioner refused to argue the matter. This kind of attitude should be deprecated. Hence this court has proceeded to consider the Civil Revision Petition on merits and passed order.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The District Munsif Court, Sivagangai..