Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1179 (MAD)

P. Palanivel v. G. Easwari

2015-02-27

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Thiruchengode, in I.A.No. 241/2014 in O.S.No.148/2011. 2. The respondent had instituted a suit in O.S.No.148 of 2011 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.98,117/- on the basis of the promissory note dated 10.08.2008. The petitioner received summons in the suit and he filed his written statement on 23.11.2011. Subsequently, due to non participation, the petitioner was set ex parte and the ex parte decree was passed against him on 15.07.2011. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.716/2011 to set aside the ex parte decree. The Trial Court to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, allowed the application. Subsequently, the suit was posted in the list on 07.03.2013. The Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also produced Exs.A1 to A4. The suit was adjourned on various dates for cross examination of P.W.1. The petitioner did not chose to cross examine the witness. Therefore, the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 25.04.2013. 4. Based on the decree, the plaintiff filed R.E.P.No.21/2013 for attachment of salary of the Judgment Debtor. The Petitioner herein received notice in the Execution Petition on 23.09.2013, but did not contest the Execution Petition also. The Court passed an order in the Execution Petition. While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.241/2014 to condone the delay of 276 days to set the ex parte decree stating that she was not well and therefore, she could not contact her counsel. 5. The application was objected by the respondent in her counter. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has explained the delay and the same was not considered by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already filed his written statement on 23.11.2011 denying the execution of the promissory note and therefore, he can be given an opportunity to contest the case. 7. It is seen that the petitioner is working in the computer Department of the State Transport Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner had received summons in the suit in the year 2011. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner and the same was set aside for giving opportunity to defend the case. 7. It is seen that the petitioner is working in the computer Department of the State Transport Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner had received summons in the suit in the year 2011. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner and the same was set aside for giving opportunity to defend the case. Subsequently, in the year 2013, when the suit was posted for cross examination of P.W.1, the petitioner deliberately remained absent. The Petitioner has not produced any material to show that he was suffering from illness during the relevant period. The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application which does not warrant interference by this Court. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.