Sahayam vs Michael Ammal

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Munsiff Court, Ambasamudram in I.A.No.364 of

2017 in O.S.No.106 of 2012, dated 20.04.2017.

The petitioner would aver among other things that the respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit in

O.S.No.106 of 2012. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2012 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram

for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property by meats and bounds and separate possession. After filing the suit,

summon was served on the revision petitioner/4th defendant for his appearance before the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, on

27.08.2012. But as he was suffering from jaundice and as per the advice of the Doctor to take bed rest, he was not able to appear before the trial

Court on 27.08.2012. Thereafter, on 22.01.2017, he came to know about the ex-parte order issued against him on the same day ie., on

27.08.2012. Challenging the ex-parte order, dated 27.08.2012, the 4th defendant, the revision petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.364

of 2017 in O.S.No. 106 of 2012 before the trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte order, dated 27.08.2012. But the trial Court has dismissed

the application on 20.04.2017, on the ground that the I.A.No.364 of 2017 has been filed after 3 years from the date of ex-parte order.

Challenging the same, the 4th defendant/revision petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner was suffering from jaundice, he could not appear for the trial

on 27.08.2012. He would further submit that the trial proceedings has not been completed and it is pending and hence, the very application filed

by the petitioner/4th defendant is absolutely maintainable and the order of the trial Court is totally misconceived. Therefore, the order of the trial

Court dated 20.04.2017 is liable to be set aside.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in 2016 (5) L.W.234 (Satbir Singh

Bakshi v. Saroja and others.

Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent before this Court either in person or through counsel.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the suit is pending and by applying the judgment relied on by the

petitioner, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the delay is condoned on payment of cost and the suit be disposed of with in a time

frame. Accordingly, the impugned order made in I.A.No.364 of 2017 in O.S.No.106 of 2012 is set aside and the delay is condoned on payment

of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the other side and the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, is directed to dispose of the suit in

O.S.No.106/12 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition

is allowed.