Madras High Court
S.Murugesan vs P.Murugesan @ Paneer Selvam on 27 March, 2018
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P.(MD)No.2085 of 2017 (NPD)
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.10364 of 2017
1.S.Murugesan
2.S.Baskaran
3.S.Jeyaprakash
4.T.Lakshmi @ Prabhavathi .. Petitioners /
Petitioners / Defendants
Vs.
1.P.Murugesan @ Paneer Selvam .. Respondent /
Respondent / Plaintiff
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
against the fair and decreetal order, dated 22.02.2017, passed in I.A.No.374
of 2016 in O.S.No.1190 of 2011 on the file of the learned III-Additional
Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
!For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
^For respondent : Mr.M.Kannan
:ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners / defendants as against the order dismissing the petition filed for condoning the delay of 436 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree.
2. The respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.1190 of 2011 for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 09.12.2008. The revision petitioners / defendants remained absent and therefore, an ex parte decree was passed on 19.01.2015. For filing a petition to set aside the said ex parte decree, there was a delay of 436 days and in order to condone the same, the revision petitioners / defendants had filed I.A.No.374 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by the Court below holding that there is no sufficient reason mentioned by the revision petitioners.
3. When the matter came up for hearing on 28.02.2018, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff has submitted that without the consent of the revision petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4, the 2nd revision petitioner has filed this civil revision petition. This Court, on verification, found that the second petitioner alone had put his signature in the vakalath filed along with the petition and due to inadvertence, the Registry has numbered the petition without verifying the same. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court directed the parties to be present before this Court. On 21.03.2018, the parties appeared before me and they submitted that they gave permission to the 2nd revision petitioner to file and conduct the civil revision petition and now, they have also put their signatures in the vakalath dated 21.03.2018. The said statement is recorded.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.
5. The only ground on which the Court below has dismissed the said application is that there is no sufficient reason stated in the petition. According to the revision petitioners / defendants, the revision petitioners 1 to 3 are the residents of Chennai and therefore, the 4th revision petitioner had been following the proceedings before the Court below and due to pneumonia fever and jaundice, the 4th revision petitioner was in bedridden for several months and therefore, she could not able to contact her counsel and know the stage of the proceeding. The revision petitioners have further stated that on coming to know about the ex parte decree, the second revision petitioner on behalf of the other revision petitioners has filed the said interlocutory application and that the delay is neither willful nor wanton. The revision petitioners would further submit that since the 4th revision petitioner took traditional treatment, they could not produce any document, in support of the same and they also assured that the revision petitioners will conduct the suit with due diligent in future.
6. When this Court pointed out that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow this petition, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the Court below may be directed to dispose of the suit within a stipulated time.
7. In view of the above, this civil revision petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for the early disposal of the case. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.
To
1.The III- Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
.