Nachimuthu Gounder vs Arumugam

K. Kalyanasundaram, J.—This revision is filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, in I.A. No. 992 of 2012 in O.S. No. 368 of 2004, on 07.03.2012.

The respondent instituted the suit in O.S. No. 5 of 2004 before the Sub Court, Erode and later it was transferred to the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, and re-numbered as O.S. No. 368 of 2004. The suit was filed for recovery of money of Rs. 85,000/- on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant remained ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed against him, on 06.02.2006. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 992 of 2012 to condone the delay of 2310 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he was seriously affected by jaundice and was bedridden from 1.2.2006 to 15.4.2006 and after receiving notice in E.P. No. 61 of 2010, he has filed the present application and hence, there occasioned the delay. The respondent filed the counter resisting the application. The learned I Additional District Munsif dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the enormous delay. Challenging the order, the present revision is filed.

Heard Mr. V. Bharadhidasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

Admittedly the petitioner received summons in the suit and he engaged one Mr. P. Shanmugam, advocate to defend his case. But subsequently the petitioner has not chosen to contest the case and hence, an ex-parte decree was passed against him on 6.2.2006. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner received notice in the execution petition E.P. No. 61 of 2010 filed by the respondent to recover the decree amount by attachment and sale of the property. In the Execution Petition also the petitioner entered his appearance through the same counsel, but he failed to file his counter statement. Hence, the petitioner was set ex-parte in the Execution Petition and an attachment order was passed on 23.08.2011.

It is seen from the records that the petitioner was also having other cases before the same Court and he appeared through the same counsel and was contesting the other cases, but only in this case he has chosen not to defend the case. It is an admitted fact that after a lapse of two years and after receiving notice in the Execution Petition, the petitioner filed this application on 11.09.2012, seeking to condone the delay of 2310 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The learned I District Munsif, Erode, has considered the evidence of the petitioner in detail and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has filed this application in a lethargic manner, without providing at least a reasonable cause. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

In the result, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.