Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 42 (MAD)

Rajamanickam v. Muthu Naidu

2014-01-06

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 17.11.2009, passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, in I.A.No.75 of 2008. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.226 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,268.75, on the basis of the promissory note, dated 03.03.2004, said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Though the petitioner received summons in the suit on 31.07.2006, he did not evince any interest in contesting the suit. Hence, the suit was decreed ex parte on 02.08.2006. Aggrieved by the said ex parte decree, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application, viz., I.A.No.75 of 2008, to condone the delay of 403 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, wherein, he contended that, when he received the suit summon on 31.07.2006, he was bed-ridden and was taking indigenous medicine. Soon after his recovery, he went to Kerala, for his livelihood and worked there as a collie. Since his health got deteriorated there too, he returned to his Village again. In the interregnum period, he could not follow his case diligently. 3. The respondent contested the application, stating that the petitioner was hale and healthy, and, he is cultivating sugarcane and supplying the same to the Sugar Mill. He was also operating his bank accounts. Therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay are rank false. The Court below, on considering the entire facts of the case, dismissed the application. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Mr. T.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has filed the suit on the basis of a forged promissory note, hence, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. Moreover, the petitioner was suffering from ailment in the year, 2006, and, he had also gone to Kerala for avocation. Hence, the petitioner could not follow the suit diligently. That apart, there is no material evidence to show that the petitioner had deliberately prolonged the matter. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the delay may be condoned. 5. Per contra, Mr. Hence, the petitioner could not follow the suit diligently. That apart, there is no material evidence to show that the petitioner had deliberately prolonged the matter. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the delay may be condoned. 5. Per contra, Mr. S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay, and, on the other hand, he had furnished inauthentic reasons for the delay. Therefore, he is not entitled to any indulgence of this Court. Further, the petitioner was very well available in the native Village and was cultivating sugarcane and supplying the same to the local Sugar Mills, and, he was also operating bank accounts, which facts would per se show that he was very much available in the suit village. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 would also buttress the case of the respondent that the petitioner was available in the native place. Therefore, the averments made in the affidavit are fallacious. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent issued notice on 16.06.2006, claiming the amount on the basis of the promissory note. Despite receipt of the said notice on 19.06.2006, the petitioner did not send any reply. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the records would go to show that the petitioner is very well available in the Village, as per the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2. Exhibit R.1 would also show that the petitioner had been in his native Village, and, he was also operating bank accounts. The only reason given by the petitioner for the delay is that he had been at Kerala doing collie work, hence, he was not aware of the suit proceedings. Admittedly, the petitioner had received summons in the suit, but, he was not interested in contesting his case. The Court below considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, and rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any illegality, or, perversity in the order passed by the Court below. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, as being devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.