Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2818 (MAD)

S. Indirani v. M. Ravichandran

2013-08-02

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court below rejected the said application seeking to condone the delay of 2686 days in filing a set aside petition. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.372/2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for declaration and for possession. An exparte decree came to be passed on 24.11.2004 as the petitioner failed to appear before the Court on the said day. After a period of 3686 days the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.638 of 2012 and prayed for condoning such delay in filing the set aside petition. The Court below rejected the said application by holding that the petitioner has not 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. The petitioner being the defendant in the above said suit suffered an exparte decree as early as on 24.11.2004. Only by an application dated 04.04.2012 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner seeks to condone the delay of 2686 days in filing the set aside petition. When the affidavit filed in support of the said application is perused, it shows that the petitioner had blamed her counsel as if he failed to inform her about the stage of the case. She further admitted in the said affidavit that after receiving notice in the execution proceedings she had approached her counsel and asked him to communicate about the development of the proceedings. It is her case that her counsel did not communicate any of the development s. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein by filing a counter affidavit. The Court below has found that after receiving notice in the execution proceedings the petitioner appeared before the Court on 19.02.2008 and even thereafter she has not taken any steps to file the application to set aside the exparte decree immediately. On the other hand nearly after four years from the date of her appearance in E.P., the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed on 04.04.2012. On the other hand nearly after four years from the date of her appearance in E.P., the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed on 04.04.2012. Thus it is manifestly clear that the petitioner has not adduced any valid and convincing reason for filing the application with such enormous delay. The Court below considered all these facts and circumstances and by exercising its discretion, has rejected the application. I find no irregularity or infirmity with the order passed by the Court below. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.