Based on the materials placed, it is found that the revision petitioner also suffered a decree in A.R.C.No.95 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. It is found that the respondent has obtained a decree in A.R.C.No.95 of 2013 as against the revision petitioner. Pursuant to the same, it is found that the respondent has levied execution proceedings against the revision petitioner in E.P.No.65 of 2014 and inasmuch as the revision petitioner did not contest the execution proceedings, it is found that based upon the orders passed in the execution proceedings, the revision petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court and later, it is found that he has also tendered some payments towards the decreetal amount and taken out an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him in the execution proceedings contending that he had knowledge about the ex parte order only at the time of his arrest and hence the ex parte order should be set aside. The said application has been returned by the Lower Court on the footing that it is not filed in time. Challenging the said return, the present civil revision petition has come to be preferred.
2. As seen from the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner along with the application to set aside the ex parte order, dated 06.01.2014 in E.P.No.65 of 2014, it is found that the revision petitioner has knowledge about the proceedings initiated against him in A.R.C.No.95 of 2013 and notice has been served on him. Therefore, it is clear that the revision petitioner has knowledge about the proceedings in A.R.C.No.95 of 2013 and therefore, it is also evident that he has knowledge about the result of the said proceedings and the execution proceedings initiated thereafter by the respondent. In such view of the matter, when the Court finds that the revision petitioner has knowledge about the proceedings in A.R.C.No.95 of 2013 and also the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent thereafter, his plea that he has no knowledge about the ex parte order passed in the execution proceedings till the time of his arrest did not find acceptance by the Lower Court and accordingly, it is found that the Lower Court has returned the application filed by the revision petitioner on the footing that it is not filed in time.
3. Considering the reasons above mentioned, it is found that the Lower Court is perfect in returning the application filed by the revision petitioner and the said return is found to be perfect in order and it does not call for any interference from this Court.
4. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Sub-Ordinate Judge, Padmanabapuram Kannyakumari District .