Madras High Court
Malarkodi vs The Branch Manager on 19 June, 2017
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.M.P.(MD).No.8173 of 2016 in C.R.P.(MD).No.SR30847 of 2016 Malarkodi ...Petitioner Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pudukottai Branch. ...Respondent PRAYER in CMP(MD)No.8173 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. PRAYER in CRP(MD)No.SR30847 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC to call for the records relating to order dated 27.04.2016 in E.P.No.89 of 2015 in L.A.C.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai and to set aside the same. !For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar ^For Respondent : Mr.Pala Ramasamy :ORDER
Heard Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2.This Petition is filed to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the revision petitioner herein failed to honour the award passed in the Lok Adalt, in a money decree filed by the Bank/respondent herein, in L.A.C.No.48 of 2015 on 12.02.2015, execution petition E.P.No.89 of 2015 was filed on 22.04.2015. Since the revision petitioner has not paid the money, the Execution Court allowed the execution petition on 27.04.2016, to attach the movables belonging to the respondent/JD, who is the revision petitioner herein, and to sell the same on public auction for realization of the award amount.
4.This revision petition is filed alleging that the order of attachment is erroneous that when the parties agreed to settle the money dispute for Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) before the Lok Adalat, the execution petition is filed for recovery of Rs.15,99,194/-(Rupees fifteen lakh ninety nine thousand one hundred and ninety four only).
5.On perusal of the execution petition, it appears that the award was passed on 12.02.2015, wherein parties have agreed to settle the money claim for Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), out of which Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) has been paid on the date of settlement, for which credit has been given. It has been agreed by the revision petitioner to pay the balance amount by 12.04.2015. Having failed to pay the money as agreed, execution petition has been filed.
6.When the condone delay application came up for admission, this Court found that the reasons stated in the affidavit to condone the delay are not satisfactory. It is the usual ground that the petitioner fell sick due to Jaundice and advised to take native treatment. So, she could not able to contact the counsel and take steps to get order copy. In the execution petition filed to execute the compromise decree passed in the Lok Adalat, the petitioner allowed the execution petition ex- parte and had preferred the revision petition with delay. Since the reason is not backed by medical record, just for asking delay cannot be condoned. More so, the very bona fide of the revision petitioner itself is doubtful. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to show her bona fide, the petitioner will deposit Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) being the principal amount in the execution petition account. Hence, the matter was adjourned from 23.03.2017 to 12.04.2017.
7.When the matter was taken up today i.e., 19.06.2017, it is reported that the said undertaking is not complied with. The delay in filing the revision petition as well as the merit of the revision petition do not disclose any reasonable cause. The delay has occurred wilfully and wantonly.
8.Hence C.M.P.(MD).No.8173 of 2016 is dismissed. Consequently, C.R.P.(MD).No.SR30847 of 2016 is rejected. No costs.
To The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai..