Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr on 24 February, 2012
11.From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent received
notice in the E.P. filed by the petitioner on 24.01.2014 and the respondent
filed the present I.A. on 22.07.2014 and the reason given by the respondent
for the delay is that respondent was under the impression that earlier
application filed to set aside the exparte decree was pending and they came to
know the exparte decree only after receipt of notice in E.P. From the above
materials, it is seen that the respondent after filing the application to set aside
the earlier exparte decree, did not follow up the case. The contention of the
respondent that their earlier counsel did not inform the stage of the case is not
a valid reason. The litigant must contact their advocate to follow up the case
filed against them. Similarly, the respondent has not given any details as to
when there is change in officers and also whether the concerned Section
Assistant continued in his post or not. It is further to be noted that the
respondent received notice in the E.P. on 24.01.2014 and they entered
appearance on 30.01.2014. Even after entering appearance through counsel in
18/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3445 of 2015
the E.P., the respondent did not file the present petition immediately. On the
other hand, he filed the present application only on 22.07.2014 after 6 months
of receiving notice in the E.P. The respondent has not explained as to why
they have not filed the present I.A. immediately after receiving notice and
entering appearance in the E.P. In the judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that
administrative reason given by the officials of the Government or
Government Organisations cannot be accepted as valid reason. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that law of Limitation applies to all including
Government and Government Organisations. The ratio in the said judgment is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In addition to that, the
respondent has not taken any steps even after 6 months of knowing about the
exparte decree, when they received notice in E.P. The learned Judge
considering the materials placed before her, held that the respondent has not
given sufficient reason to condone the delay and the delay is not satisfactorily
explained. Having held so, the learned Judge erroneously allowed the I.A. on
the ground that relief sought for by the petitioner in the suit is for mandatory
injunction and respondent must be given an opportunity to put forth their
case. The respondent was not vigilant enough to follow up the case and the
19/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3445 of 2015
reason given by the respondent for condoning the delay is not acceptable.