M.Damodaran @Raghu v. M.Hemamalini

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 04.07.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(NPD).No.1905 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9940 of 2016 M.Damodaran @ Raghu ... Petitioner Vs.

M.Hemamalini ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2012 in O.S.No.399 of 2002 dated 06.01.2014 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Manimaran

O R D E R

Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2012 in O.S.No.399 of 2002 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2.The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.399 of 2002 for permanent injunction.

3.The defendant filed his written statement and was contesting the suit. Thereafter, since the defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, the trial Court passed an exparte decree against him on 17.04.2008. Subsequently, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.747 of 2012 to condone the delay of 1383 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the defendant has stated that since he had gone to other State and stayed there for a long period, he was not in a position to file the application to set aside the exparte decree in time. In the affidavit, apart from saying that he had gone to other State, he has not given any other details as to when he left the State and to which State he had gone.

The affidavit filed in support of the petition is bald and bereft of details. The plaintiff filed her counter and opposed the petition. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the application. 4.It is pertinent to note that in the suit, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1973 of 2002 for permanent injunction and the trial Court granted an order of injunction on 11.10.2002. The defendant filed a vacate injunction petition in I.A.No.2035 of 2002 and both the applications were taken up together and orders were passed on 18.12.

the vacate injunction petition and allowing the injunction application. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred an Appeal in C.M.A.No.9 of 2003, which was also dismissed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu on 09.08.2004. Thereafter, the defendant filed his written statement and issues were framed and when the case was posted for trial, the defendant remained absent. After a lapse of nearly five years, the defendant has come forward to file an application to set aside the exparte decree, which was rightly dismissed by the trial Court for want of reasons. 5.It is settled position that in the absence of sufficient cause shown by the party, the delay should not be condoned. The trial Court is perfectly correct in dismissing the application.

6.In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index : No 04.07.2016 Internet : Yes va

M.DURAISWAMY,J.

va To The Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1905 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9940 of 2016 04.07.2016