Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 684 (MAD)

V. Thanuja v. Shenoy Nagar Benefit Fund Ltd.

2012-02-08

C.NAGAPPAN, M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2012
Judgment :- M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. 1. The appellants herein are the applicants in A.No.4548 and 4549 of 2011 in C.S.No.70 of 2006 and defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. The appellants filed Application No.4548 of 2011 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 26.8.2011 passed in the said suit against them and Application No.4549 of 2011 praying for condoning the delay of 1998 days in filling the written statement. The said applications were strongly opposed by the first respondent/plaintiff by filing a common counter affidavit. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of those applications and the common counter affidavit and the conduct of the appellants, had dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 26.9.2011. Challenging vires of the said order, the present appeals are filed. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.70 of 2006 against the appellants and one Srinath praying for a judgment and decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.55,42,470.35 with interest @ 21% p.a. on Rs.14,00,000/-from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation and also for consequential reliefs. 3. The appellants/defendants 1 and 2 had entered appearance in the year 2006, but they did not choose to file their written statement. They also took an application in A.No.70 of 2011 praying for sending promissory notes dated 16.8.1995, 05.10.1995 and 10.12.1998, the letter dated 17.8.2000 and the letter of guarantee dated 25.6.2003 to the Forensic Laboratory to verify the signatures and also to compare the signatures found in the said documents. The learned single Judge by order dated 21.01.2011 dismissed the said application by stating among other things that the suit was filed way back in the year 2006 and the appellants herein, who are applicants in the said applications, have not so far filed the written statement and without filing the written statement, taking such a stand is untenable and hence dismissed the said application, as not maintainable. 4. In the interregnum, since the appellants did not file written statement, the matter was posted under the caption "Undefended Board" and when the matter was listed, the appellants did not file the written statement and hence they were set ex-parte on 26.8.2011. 5. 4. In the interregnum, since the appellants did not file written statement, the matter was posted under the caption "Undefended Board" and when the matter was listed, the appellants did not file the written statement and hence they were set ex-parte on 26.8.2011. 5. Thereafter, the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 filed Application No.4548 of 2011 on 15.9.2011 praying for setting aside the ex-parte order and Application No.4549 of 2011 for condonation of delay of 1998 days in filing the written statement. In the affidavits filed in support of those applications, it is averred by the appellants herein that the truth and vires of documents relied on by the first respondent/plaintiff, are denied by them, as the documents were not executed by them and therefore they were under the impression that no written statement was required to be filed since no case has been made out as against them based on those documents. Later on their counsel informed them that an application has to be filed to send the documents for expert opinion and subsequently they filed Application No.70 of 2011 for referring certain documents for expert opinion and the said application was dismissed by this Court on 21.01.2011. It is further averred by the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 that thereafter the matter suddenly appeared in the cause list on 26.8.2011 for filing written statement and though their counsel appeared and sought time to file written statement, the same was rejected and the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on the same day. It is further averred by the appellants/applicants therein that since they were not in station, the said fact was not informed to them by their counsel and after coming to know the same, they filed applications for setting aside the ex-parte order and also for condoning the delay of 1998 days in filing the written statement. 6. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a common counter-affidavit strongly opposing the said applications by stating among other things that the first appellant has admitted in the reply notice dated 29.9.2005 about the sanction of loans by the first respondent/plaintiff. 6. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a common counter-affidavit strongly opposing the said applications by stating among other things that the first appellant has admitted in the reply notice dated 29.9.2005 about the sanction of loans by the first respondent/plaintiff. It is further averred that the second appellant herein is a promotee-Director of the first respondent Company and he was in a responsible position in the Company as the Treasurer and Key Guardian with authority to sign the cheques jointly with the Executive Director and in that capacity, was holding the duplicate strong room keys jointly with the Executive Director till he ceased to be the Director in the year 2001. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that during the relevant period, only the first appellant, who is none else than the wife of the second appellant herein, executed all the documents relating to the loans availed and also signed the acknowledgment of liability dated 30.4.2001 and the first appellant herein also acknowledged the liability of debt on 31.12.2003. The second appellant had also executed a guarantee letter on the same day and hence it is not open to them to deny the same. Insofar as the merits of the applications are concerned, it is averred in the counter-affidavit that the appellants having received the summons and having appeared through counsel in the year 2006 itself, they have not cared to file a written statement for the past five years and in spite of the fact that the suit was posted in the "Undefended Board", have not filed the written statement and therefore, their request for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 26.8.2011 as well as for condonation of delay of 1998 days in filing the written statement, cannot be sustained and hence prayed for dismissal of the said applications. 7. The learned Judge, after going through the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications and the common counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, found that the reasons assigned by the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 do not merit acceptance. The learned Judge in terms of Order 5 Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, granted liberty to the appellants herein to take part in the further proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 26.9.2011 in dismissing the above said applications, the defendants 1 and 2, preferred these original side appeals. The learned Judge in terms of Order 5 Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, granted liberty to the appellants herein to take part in the further proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 26.9.2011 in dismissing the above said applications, the defendants 1 and 2, preferred these original side appeals. 8. When the matter was listed on 10.01.2012, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 prayed some time to find out the possibility of depositing amount towards the admitted liability, as per their draft written statement. Therefore, this Court granted two weeks' time and thereafter once again adjourned the matter to 08.02.2012. However, since the learned counsel was not able to come with a concrete proposal for payment of even the admitted amount, this Court is left with no other option except to dispose of these appeals on merits. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that they were advised by their counsel that there was no need to file a written statement since the documents relied on by the first respondent/plaintiff were not executed by them and accordingly, they did not file the written statement. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that on the advice of their counsel, the appellants herein filed Application No.70 of 2011 for sending some of the documents said to have been executed by them, which are relied on by the first respondent/plaintiff, to forensic lab for expert opinion and it was dismissed on 21.01.2011 and subsequently the matter appeared suddenly in the cause list on 26.8.2011 for filing written statement. Though their counsel requested time for filing the written statement, the learned Judge set the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 ex-parte on the same day and immediately within fifteen days, they filed the above applications for setting aside the ex-parte order as well as for condonation of delay of 1998 days in filing the written statement and they also filed draft written statement along with Application No.4549 of 2011. The learned counsel would further contend that the non-filing of the written statement on time in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as neither wilful nor deliberate, as they only as per the advice of the counsel and hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders. 10. The learned counsel would further contend that the non-filing of the written statement on time in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as neither wilful nor deliberate, as they only as per the advice of the counsel and hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 appeared in the suit in the year 2006 and for the past five years, they have not chosen to file the written statement. It is further contended that the second appellant was holding the key position in the plaintiff's Company and he executed all the documents and both the appellants had acknowledged their liability and therefore, it is not open to them to deny the execution of the documents. Insofar as the non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the appellants herein filed Application No.70 of 2011 for sending the documents for expert opinion and in the order dismissing the said application, the learned Judge has observed that the defendants 1 and 2 have not chosen to file written statement and when their stand is not known, they cannot maintain the said application. Even though the said application was dismissed on 21.01.2011, till August 2011, the appellants have not filed the written statement and therefore they were set ex-parte on 26.08.2011. 11. Insofar as the delay in filing the written statement is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has drawn our attention to Order 5 Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and also Form No.13, which contemplate that the defendants on entering appearance, shall file written statement within thirty days after service of summons and though the defendants 1 and 2 had entered appearance as early as 2006, they did not choose to file written statement and taking into consideration the conduct of the defendants 1 and 2, the learned Judge rightly rejected the applications and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459 (Oriental Aroma Chemicals Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another). 12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459 (Oriental Aroma Chemicals Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another). 12. This Court has bestowed its attention to the submission made on both sides and perused the materials available on record in the form of typed-set of documents and also the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff. 13. It is an admitted fact that on receipt of summons, the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 had entered appearance in the year 2006 and within the time stipulated under Order 5 Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, they did not file the written statement. On 29.10.2010, they filed an application to send some of the documents for expert opinion and the said application came to be numbered as Application No.70 of 2011. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application and held that since the appellants did not file the written statement, their stand with regard to the truth and veracity of the documents sought to be referred to expert opinion have not been made known and hence, the learned Judge dismissed the said application by the order dated 21.01.2011. It is clear from the above order that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 have not filed the written statement till the date of dismissal of Application No.70 of 2011 on 21.01.2011. Even after the dismissal of the said application, the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to file the written statement though they are well aware that due to non-filing of written statement only, Application No.70 of 2011 was dismissed. Since the written statement has not been filed, the matter was listed before the learned Judge under the caption "Undefended Board". When the case was called on 26.08.2011, the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 did not file the written statement and the learned Judge, taking into consideration the lethargic attitude on the part of the defendants 1 and 2, did not grant time to file the written statement and accordingly, they were set ex-parte on 26.8.2011. When the case was called on 26.08.2011, the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 did not file the written statement and the learned Judge, taking into consideration the lethargic attitude on the part of the defendants 1 and 2, did not grant time to file the written statement and accordingly, they were set ex-parte on 26.8.2011. Though the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 filed Application Nos.4548 and 4549 of 2011 on 15.9.2011 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 26.8.2011 and for condoning the delay of 1998 days in filing the written statement, the fact remains that they have not adduced proper reasons for the delay in filing the written statement between 2006 and 2011. 14. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that in the common counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, it has been averred that the second appellant was one of the directors of the first respondent company and that he along with his wife availed loan, for which necessary documents were also executed and the second appellant also acknowledged the said liability. Apart from executing the guarantee letter, he has also acknowledged their liability. Therefore, the reason adduced by the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 in not filing the written statement within the stipulated time cannot be said to be reasonable or bone fide. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459 has considered the question as to whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001. The Supreme Court has also considered the scope of law of limitation and also the expression "sufficient cause" and observed as follows: "14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 15. The expression "Sufficient Cause" employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate – Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji ( 1987 (2) SCC 107 ), N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy ( 1998 (7) SCC 123 ) and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil ( 2001 (9) SCC 106 ). 19. It may have been possible for this Court to ignore the first error in the impugned order because by deleting the figures and words "4 years and 28" in Paras 2 and 3 of the application and substituting the same with the figure 1067, the respondents misled the High Court in believing that the delay was of 1067 days only but it is not possible to fathom any reason why the Division Bench of the High Court omitted to consider the detailed reply which had been filed on behalf of the appellant to contest the prayer for condonation of delay. Notwithstanding this, we may have set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the High Court for fresh disposal of the application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but, do not consider it proper to adopt that course, because as will be seen hereinafter, the respondents did not approach the High Court with clean hands." 16. The Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the party therein and held that the respondents did not approach the High Court with clean hands and therefore allowed the appeal thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 17. The Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the party therein and held that the respondents did not approach the High Court with clean hands and therefore allowed the appeal thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 17. In our considered opinion, the above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to file written statement for nearly five years and though their application for sending some of the documents for expert opinion was dismissed as early as 21.01.2011 on the ground of non-filing of the written statement, they have not filed the written statement till they were set ex-parte during August 2011. The reason assigned by them is as per the legal advice, they did not file the written statement. However, this Court is of the view, the said reason is untenable and defendants 1 and 2 exhibited callous and indifferent attitude to the Court proceedings. 18. In our considered opinion, the reason assigned by the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 in the affidavit filed in support of Application Nos.4548 and 4549 of 2011 cannot be said to be proper and sufficient. Because of the callous attitude on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 in filing the written statement, the suit is kept pending for nearly five years. This Court, after ordering notice to the respondents herein, also afforded an opportunity to the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 to deposit the admitted sum due and payable to the first respondent/plaintiff as indicated in their draft written statement, but they did not avail the same. 19. This Court on an independent application of mind to the entire materials available record, is of the view that the learned Judge has assigned proper reasons for dismissing the said applications and it cannot be said that the said order suffers on account of perversity, illegality or irregularity. 20. In terms of Order 6 Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, when the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 being set ex-parte, they may be allowed to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to address the Court but unless the Court otherwise directs, evidence shall not be received on their behalf. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 may avail the benefit of said provision. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 may avail the benefit of said provision. 21. This Court finds no merit in these appeals and accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed.