Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2357 (MAD)

Arumugham v. Chitthivinayagam

2008-07-10

S.PALANIVELU

body2008
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 110. 2006 passed in CMA No.17 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Villupuram confirming the decree dated 211. 2002 passed in I.A.No.791 of 2002 in O.S.No.177 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram. 2. The petitioner is the sixth defendant in O.S.No.177 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram. On account of his non-filing of written statement, on 211. 2001 the case was decreed ex parte. He filed an application before the said Court to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him by adducing the reason that he could not file the written statement because of non-availability of important document, which was necessary to prove his case. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is averred that inspite of granting several adjournments for filing written statement, the defendant did not file the written statement and even at the time of filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, he had not filed the written statement. 4. The said petition was dismissed by the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram. The petitioner herein carried the matter in appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in C.M.A.No.17 of 2003. In the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, it is observed that the allegation that the petitioner had to secure an important document for filing the written statement is a bald statement and that at the time of filing of the application to set aside the ex parte order or even afterwards, the written statement was not filed and hence no reasonable cause could be inferred in this case and the petitioner could not get any relief from the Court. Eventually, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal suffered dismissal at the hands of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram. 5. As far as the reason for non-filing of the written statement is concerned, the Court has to take a lenient view, of course subject to the circumstances of the case. This Court finds it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner for filing the written statement. Whatever be the reason, imposing of some cost on the petitioner may be a reasonable order. 6. This Court finds it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner for filing the written statement. Whatever be the reason, imposing of some cost on the petitioner may be a reasonable order. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner deposits cost of Rs.500/-to the credit of O.S.No.177 of 1998 before the II Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram on or before 8. 2008, in default, the Civil Revision Petition will be dismissed without further reference to this Court. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.