Madras High Court
K.Prabavathi vs G.Anandkumar on 21 July, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.9866 of 2022
K.Prabavathi ... Petitioner
..Vs.
G.Anandkumar ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by
the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in
O.S.No.403 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sheik Ismail
For Respondent : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 12.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.403 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. Page No.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant, against whom, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.403 of 2017 for the relief of recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex-parte. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant had chosen to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with the petition to condone the delay of 80 days and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that the delay was not wanton and it was caused only because of the misguidance got from the petitioner's counsel. For the mistake of the counsel, the party should not be allowed to suffer and hence, the order of the learned trial Judge should be set aside. Page No.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022
5. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied upon the judgment of this Court held in Tamilselvi vs. A.Ramya and another, reported in [2020 SCC OnLine Mad 20171].
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the decree was passed as early as on 06.12.2017. In fact, the goods were sold and the decree was also executed in the year 2018; the revision petitioner/defendant had chosen to file the application just as an after thought and no acceptable reason is stated to condone the delay; the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petition.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit was decreed on 06.12.2017. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated and the goods were attached and sold. It is to be noted that in the execution proceedings itself the judgment debtor, who is the revision petitioner herein has filed her counter. So, it cannot be the contention of the Page No.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022 petitioner that she did not have knowledge about the suit or the ex-parte decree. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that she was misguided to appear before the Court for the first hearing. If someone had guided the revision petitioner to appear before the Court for first hearing, it cannot be a misguidance but good guidance. The affidavit of the petitioner would show that apparently no reason is stated for the delay caused. It is difficult to construe, how an advice given to her to appear for the first hearing can be a wrong advice.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that for the mistake of the counsel the parties should not be suffered. But, it is not substantiated through records, what mistake was committed by the counsel and how the party got aggrieved due to counsel’s mistake.
9. In view of the strange reason stated, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. The revision petitioner has knowingly chosen to appear before Page No.4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022 the Court, but, thereafter, remained ex-parte, after filing the counter in the execution proceedings. Even in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, no acceptable reasons are stated. The learned trial Judge has rightly dealt the issue. I feel it does not require any interference.
10 .In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge of Salem in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.403 of 2017 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.07.2022 Index:Yes No Speaking Order:Yes/No ms To The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.
Page No.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022 R.N.MANJULA, J.
ms C.R.P.(PD)No.1947 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9866 of 2022 21.07.2022 Page No.6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis