K.J. Raju v. G. Ayyappan,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.06.2019 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.R.P.(NPD).No.840 of 2016 and CMP.No.4665 of 2016 K.J.Raju ... Petitioner Vs.

G.Ayyappan ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C against the fair and final order 20.11.2015 made in E.A.No.87 of 2014 in E.P.No.6 of 2014 in O.S.No.4 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.T.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.K.F.Manavalan *****

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the fair and final order 20.11.2015 made in E.A.No.87 of 2014 in E.P.No.6 of 2014 in O.S.No.4 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam.

2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in a suit for recovery of money. He filed a written statement and remained ex-parte. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed. Even in the Execution proceeding, in the year 2014, he remained ex-parte. The petitioner came up with a petition to set aside the ex-parte order in E.A.No.6 of 2014 and the same was dismissed. The Execution Court scheduled sale of properties by order dated 22.12.2015. At this juncture, the petitioner is before this Court against the order dismissing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order passed in the Execution Petition.

3. A perusal of the petition would simply say that the petitioner was not in good health condition and he had to go to hospital at Coimbatore. Therefore, he could not sign the counter affidavit and participate in the trial. The reasons as such are not acceptable and considering the same, the Execution Court had dismissed the petition filed by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 64 C.P.C. Even before this Court, no convincing reasons explaining the delay have been produced. When an attempt is made by the judgment debtor to protract the proceeding without filing any evidence, it cannot be entertained. The petitioner is also unable to pay the amount.

4. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly,

the order passed by the trail Court is confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.06.2019 bri Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order To The Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam.

M. GOVINDARAJ, J.

bri C.R.P.(NPD)No.840 of 2016 and CMP.No.4665 of 2016 24.06.2019