M. Dhesingu, v. R. Mani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(NPD)No.1960 of 2016 M. Dhesingu .... Petitioner vs R. Mani .... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and final order dated 2.4.2016 made in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 in O.S.No.81 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari.

For Petitioner : MrP. Saravana Sowmiyan

O R D E R

Challenging the fair and final order in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 in O.S.No.81 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari, the plaintiff filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2.

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1997 for declaration and permanent injunction. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed against him on 11.8.2000. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree passed on 11.8.2000. 3.

Though the said application was filed on 21.8.2000, the said application was returned by the Registry of the trial Court for complying with some defects. Thereafter, the papers were represented by the defendant, after a delay of 3894 days. Hence the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 to condone the delay of 3894 days in representing the papers.

4.

In paragraph-2 of the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the defendant has stated that there was a talk for settlement between him and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff also agreed that he will not pursue the matter further. Believing that the plaintiff will not pursue the matter further, the defendant had stated that he kept quiet, however, he came to know that the plaintiff is pursuing with the decree, obtained by him, when he started giving troubles to him,

taking advantage of the exparte decree, obtained by him. Hence the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 to condone the delay of 3894 days in representing the papers. The application, filed by the defendant, was opposed by the plaintiff stating that the defendant has not given sufficient cause for the long delay. 5.

The trial court, taking into consideration of both sides, dismissed the petition, finding that the defendant has not given sufficient cause for condonation of long delay. 6.

The parties, seeking for condonation of delay, should give sufficient cause for the delay. In the case on hand, the defendant has not given sufficient reason for condoning the inordinate delay of 3894 days in representing the papers.

7.

The ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2015(1) SCC 680 (H. Dohil Constructions Co Pvt Ltd vs Nahar Exports Limited & another), squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the trial

M. DURAISWAMY,J., sr court had rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

14.07.2016 sr Index:no website:yes To The District Munsif Court, Sankari, CRP (NPD) No.1960/2016