Madras High Court
D.Gopinath vs D.Gopinath on 4 January, 2016
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 04.01.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(NPD).No.1388 of 2015 D.Gopinath S/o.Dillibabu ... Petitioner Vs. D.Gopinath S/o.Durai Raju ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 10.03.2015 made in I.A.No.3244 of 2015 in O.S.No.667 of 2014 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, In-Charge III Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.N.V.V.Krishna O R D E R
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.3244 of 2015 in O.S.No.667 of 2014 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, In-Charge III Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.667 of 2014 for recovery of possession, to pay arrears of damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs.94,000/- and to direct the defendant to pay the damages for use and occupation from January 2014 to till the date of delivery of vacant possession at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per month.
3.Since the defendant remained absent, the trial Court passed an exparte decree on 27.06.2014. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.3244 of 2015 to condone the delay of 183 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 27.06.2014. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the defendant has stated that he was not served with any summons and the plaintiff had managed to misguide the trial Court by way of manipulated documents. Further, he has stated that he came to know about the suit only in the 1st week of January 2015. The plaintiff filed his counter disputing the averments stated in the affidavit. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, found that the defendant was duly served with the private notice and that inspite of receiving the private notice, he remained absent.
4.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the respondent produced the certified copies of the Court summons issued to the defendant, whereby, it is clear that the defendant had received the Court summons on 11.04.2014 itself. Inspite of receiving the Court summons and the private notice, the defendant remained absent before the trial Court. Contrary to the real facts, the defendant has filed the affidavit stating that he was not served with any summons in the suit. The documents produced by the learned counsel for the respondent would clearly establish that the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are utter falsehood to the knowledge of the defendant. Since the defendant had failed to explain the reasons for the delay in an acceptable manner, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.
5.It is also pertinent to note that in the present Civil Revision Petition, by order dated 16.10.2015, this Court had directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the defendant failed to comply with the order dated 16.10.2015 and also failed to honour the promise made by him that he would make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.11.2015. In view of the same, the interim stay granted by this Court was also vacated on 17.11.2015. The trial Court, taking into consideration the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, rightly dismissed the application.
6.In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index : No 04.01.2016
Internet : Yes
va
To
The IV Assistant Judge,
In-Charge III Assistant Court,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
va
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1388 of 2015
04.01.2016