The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 15.07.2009, passed in I.A.No.250 of 2008 in O.S.No.113 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur.
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.113 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur and the abovesaid suit had been levied by the respondents / plaintiffs for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It is noted that the revision petitioner had entered appearance in the abovesaid suit through his Advocate and as could be seen from his case projected in I.A.No.250 of 2008, the abovesaid case has been posted for filing his written statement on 20.06.2007. According to the revision petitioner, inasmuch as his Advocate had been arrested by the Police and kept in judicial custody in connection with the political agitation, his Advocate could not inform about the stage of the case to him and furthermore, according to him, inasmuch as he had been out of station for the purpose of purchasing a lorry for his son, he was unable to http://www.judis.nic.in 3 contact his Advocate and know about the stage of the suit and thereafter, waiting for the intimation from the Advocate and only subsequently, on coming to know that the respondents had started making enquiry from the Village Administrative Officer to change the Patta in respect of the suit property in their names, he came to know about the ex parte decree passed against him in the suit and inasmuch as he has a good defence to resist the respondents' case and as the ex parte decree passed against him could not be set aside within the time allowed by law and for the abovesaid reasons, the delay of 215 days had occurred, praying for the condonation of the abovesaid delay, the abovesaid I.A.No.250 of 2008 had been preferred by him.
3. The respondents resisted the abovesaid application of the revision petitioner, in toto, disputing the reasons adduced by him for the condonation of the delay and putforth the case that the abovesaid reasons are projected falsely and made only for the purpose of the application and contended that the revision petitioner had entered appearance though his Advocate on 14.06.2006 and thereafter, from 14.06.2006, the matter had been adjourned to several dates, as detailed in the counter, for the purpose of filing of the written statement by the revision petitioner and thereby, he had nearly taken eight months of time for filing the written statement from 14.06.2006 to 02.02.2007 and subsequently also, took further adjournment to 27.03.2007 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and on that day, did not file the written statement and the matter was adjourned to 26.04.2007 as a last chance for filing the written statement and even on that day, he has not chosen to file the written statement, finally the Court had adjourned the matter to 09.06.2007 for the purpose of filing the written statement, even on that day, he had failed to file the written statement and accordingly, the Court having setting him ex parte, later, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondents, passed the ex parte decree against the revision petitioner on 20.06.2007 and therefore, the case projected by the revision petitioner that on account of the arrest of his Advocate and he not being in station as detailed in the application, as the reasons for not filing the written statement and his averment that thereby he is not aware of the stage of the suit, as such, are false and deliberately projected for earning the sympathy of the Court one way or the other and on the other hand, considering the conduct of the revision petitioner in not filing the written statement from the date of his appearance, despite the indulgence shown by the Court, according to the respondents, only with a view to cause irreparable loss and hardship to them, the present application has been laid and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record, holding that the cause adduced by the revision petitioner for the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 condonation of the delay do not constitute sufficient cause and on the other hand, the revision petitioner having failed to file the written statement for more than one year, despite the indulgence shown by the Court and noting that he had been dragging on the matter endlessly only to cause hardship to the respondents one way or the other and accordingly, further holding that the alleged cause has also not been substantiated by the revision petitioner by placing convincing materials, dismissed the application. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
5. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, the revision petitioner had entered appearance through his Advocate in the matter on 14.06.2006. In such view of the matter, as rightly putforth, the revision petitioner should have endeavoured to file his written statement at the earliest point of time, if he really has a good defence to resist the respondents' suit. On the other hand, it is found that from the date of entering appearance, the revision petitioner had been taking several adjournments for the purpose of filing written statement, accordingly, for nearly one year, the Court had shown indulgence to him for the purpose of filing written statement in the suit. Despite the same, it is seen that the revision petitioner had not endeavoured to file the written statement to resist the respondents' suit. This would only go to show that inasmuch as the revision petitioner has no defence to resist the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 respondents' suit, he had been taking adjournments, without acceptable reasons for the purpose of filing the written statement. At last, when the Court had granted him the opportunity for filing the written statement as a last chance, despite the said indulgence, it is found that the revision petitioner had not chosen to file the written statement. Resultantly, the Court below had set him ex parte and passed the ex parte decree in favour of the respondents. Later, with the requisite application, seeking to condone the delay of 215 days in preferring the same, he had come forward with the present application. The reasons given by the revision petitioner are that as his Advocate was arrested in connection with the political agitation, he was unable to apprise the stage of the case to the revision petitioner and as the revision petitioner was not in station for the purpose of purchasing a lorry for his son, he was unable to contact his Advocate and only later, on coming to know about the passing of the ex parte decree, he has been necessitated to lay the present application. The respondents have strongly repudiated the reasons projected by the revision petitioner. Despite the same, the revision petitioner has not endeavoured to place any material worth acceptance, at least prima facie, to establish the alleged cause putforth by him. It is, thus, found that inasmuch as the abovesaid cause projected by the revision petitioner is false to his knowledge, it is found that he is unable to substantiate the same with reliable and sound materials. If there is any element of truth in the abovesaid cause, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the revision petitioner would have endeavoured to examine his Advocate or filed necessary affidavit from the concerned Advocate and also would have examined him or his son with reference to the other reason projected by him as being out of station for the purpose of purchasing a lorry to his son. As to when he came to know about the ex parte decree, what steps he had thereafter taken, with reference to all those particulars, no detail has been spelt out. Furthermore, when the materials placed on record point out that the Court below had afforded adequate opportunity to him to file the written statement by giving several adjournments, despite the same, the revision petitioner having not made use of the same, accordingly, it is palpably evident that the revision petitioner's aim is only to delay the proceedings endlessly so as to cause irreparable loss and hardship to the respondents and thereby, had not filed the written statement and come forward with the false case and on account of the same also, unable to substantiate the same with acceptable proof. Furthermore, as rightly determined by the Court below, even along with the delay condonation application, the revision petitioner had not filed the written statement and this would only go to further show that his aim is not to defend the suit lawfully, but only to protract the proceedings endlessly and this attitude of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted in any manner and it is noted that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application preferred by the revision petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
6. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.