1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the order dated, 4.2.2014, made in IA.No.683 of 2012 in OS.No.205 of 2006, by the II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Defendants 6 and 7 are the Petitioners and the Plaintiff is the Respondent. The suit was filed for partition and permanent injunction. In the suit, the Defendants 6 and 7 had filed the 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1501 of 2014 above application, seeking to condone the delay of 770 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, dated 28.7.2009. Since the said application was dismissed by the impugned order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioners came to know about the exparte decree only in the final decree proceedings and that if the Petitioners are not allowed to contest the suit on merits, their valuable right will be affected and that there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioners and that a liberal approach should have been taken in matters of condonation of delay and he would pray for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Petitioners were given sufficient opportunities to contest the case, however, they did not come forward to contest the case, which resulted in passing of the exparte decree and that the reasons assigned by them for condoning the delay are false and hence, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.
6. The suit was filed in the year 2006 and an exparte decree dated, 28.07.2009 was passed, setting all the Defendants 1 to 7 exparte. The application to condone the delay of 770 days in filing the application to set aside the said exparte decree, was filed by the Defendants 6 and 7 and it was dismissed by the impugned order and as against the same, this Civil Revision Petition was 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1501 of 2014 filed by the Defendants 6 and 7.
7. The reason assigned by the Petitioners for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree is that they came to know about the preliminary decree only during the final decree proceedings and that they were under the impression that the other Defendants are contesting the case on their behalf.
8. Where there is sufficient cause shown with supporting materials and the application for condonation of delay has been moved bona fidely, the court would normally condone the delay, but in cases where the delay has not been explained at all by valid evidence, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant, who seeks to condone the delay.
9. In this case, it is seen from the records that though the Petitioners along with the other Defendants had appeared through counsel, but they failed to proceed with the suit and hence, they were set exparte. The Defendants have to contest their own case. In view of the above, since there was no sufficient cause for each and every day of delay, assigned by the Petitioners and for want of materials to substantiate the same, the court below had not accepted the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning the delay, as untenable. This Court also finds no proper and satisfactory explanation given by the Petitioner for each and every day of delay, by producing valid material evidence.
10.To sum and substance, as stated above, the reasons assigned by the 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1501 of 2014 A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Srcm Petitioners for condoning the delay given are in usual and casual terms. Unless the reasons assigned are bona fide and unless it is shown that there were bona fide efforts, there is no necessity to accept the usual explanations. There is no proper and satisfactory explanation offered by the Petitioners for each and every day of delay and as such, this Court is of the view that the court below was right in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, by the impugned order, which warrants no interference.
11.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
22.11.2021 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To
1. The II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai Pre-Delivery Order in CRP(MD)No.1501 of 2014 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis