Decided on September 23,2020

Chinna Manthadi Appellant
N.Rosi Manthadi Respondents


- (1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of the interlocutory application filed to condone the delay of 2274 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 04.10.2001.
(2.) The deceased petitioner is the second defendant in the suit and the deceased respondent is the first plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by the deceased respondent for declaration of title and injunction in O.S.No.9 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruttani, where the second defendant filed written statement dated 25.04.1995, wherein he had set out the decree passed in O.S.No.607 of 1990 filed by him against the first defendant and his wife, which was decreed on 21.09.1990 and the sale deed was executed by the Court in E.P.No.54 of 1991 on 11.06.1993. Pursuant to the sale executed by the Court, delivery of possession was also made by the Court on 20.10.1994. Suppressing the above fact, the suit has been filed. It was submitted that the said suit was transferred from District Munsif Court, Tiruttani to District Munsif Court, Pallipattu and renumbered as O.S.No.631 of 2001, in which, the petitioners were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 04.10.2001. The petitioners had got knowledge of the exparte decree when the plaintiff declared that they got judgment against them on 29.12.2008. Immediately, on 30.10.2008, they filed the above application. The reason for the delay was that the Advocate who handled the case at Tiruttani namely N.S.Egambaram died. Before his death, he handed over the bundle to one Mr.Krishna Kumar, Advocate. But the said fact was not within the knowledge as the first defendant himself died. The Trial Court, without considering the decree passed in O.S.No.607 of 1990 dated 21.09.1990 and the subsequent transactions, simply passed an exparte decree without framing any issues; without discussing any issues and without assigning any reasons for arriving at the conclusion. According to the petitioners, setting the defendants exparte will not automatically entitle the plaintiff for decree. He has already approached the Court for condonation of delay and the same was allowed at the first instance. But, in CRP (PD) Nos.3852 and 3853 of 2009, by order dated 18.03.2011, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. In the second round of litigation, the Trial Court has dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that each and every day's delay should be properly explained and without showing sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. The petitioners committed delay of more than seven years and therefore, without any sufficient cause and satisfactory explanation, they are not entitled to get the delay condoned.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.