Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4148 (MAD)

Parvathi Ammal v. Nirmala Devi

2018-11-09

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who had suffered ex parte preliminary decree in O.S.No.53 of 2004, had preferred an application to set aside the same. Inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 821 days in preferring the said application, the petitioners had filed I.A.No.151 of 2007 to condone the said delay. The reasons adduced by the petitioners for the delay are that as the settlement talks had been proceeding between the parties and accordingly, as they had been persuaded by the respondent not to file the written statement and also as the petitioners have been suffering from jaundice and their Advocate has not informed them about the decree passed in the said suit, according to them, the delay had occurred. 2. The above reasons given by the petitioners for the condonation of delay are stoutly resisted by the respondent contending that all those reasons given by the petitioners are false and intended only to further delay the proceedings endlessly so as to cause irreparable loss and hardship to the respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioners knowing fully well about the suit as well as the decree passed therein deliberately did not contest the same and only thereafter, they had chosen to levy the application with a view to prevent the respondent from reaping the fruits of the decree obtained by her. 3. The reasoning of the petitioners that they had been persuaded by the respondent not to file the written statement in the suit on the footing that the settlement proceedings had been initiated between the parties, with reference to the same, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, no acceptable and reliable materials are forthcoming on the part of the petitioners. On the other hand, when as could be seen from the materials placed on record, the parties are not maintaining good relationship right from the inception, the reasoning putforth that due to the settlement talks between the parties, the petitioners had not chosen to contest the case of the respondent as such does not merit acceptance. Therefore, the first reason adduced by the petitioners for the delay is found to be false and not proved and rightly rejected by the Court below. 4. The next reason given by the petitioners is that on account of illness, they were unable to prefer the application in time. Therefore, the first reason adduced by the petitioners for the delay is found to be false and not proved and rightly rejected by the Court below. 4. The next reason given by the petitioners is that on account of illness, they were unable to prefer the application in time. According to the petitioners, as they had been suffering from jaundice, they were unable to contact their Advocate and that their Advocate has also not informed them above the development in the suit. However, as regards the above said case of illness projected by the petitioners, as rightly found by the Court below, no acceptable and reliable materials/proof had been placed by the petitioners with reference to the same. As rightly found by the Court below, P.W.2 – Doctor has only spoken about the sufferings of the petitioners and other than that no other convincing material has been projected by the petitioner or by P.W.2 with reference to the alleged illness said to have been suffered by the petitioners. Therefore, the illness projected by the petitioners for the delay, when the same is found to be not substantiated with reliable and acceptable materials, the Court below is wholly justified in rejecting the same. 5. The last reason given by the petitioner is that their Advocate has not apprised them of the development in the suit. However, when it is noted that evidence has been adduced in the matter that the petitioners had met their Advocate within a month after the decree passed against them, in such view of the matter, their case that their Advocate has not informed them about the development of the suit also falls to the ground. 6. In the light of the above said factors, it is seen that the Court below has rightly appreciated the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, in the correct perspective and found that the petitioners have not projected any sufficient cause, as such, for the condonation of the huge delay. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners for the condonation of the huge delay in preferring the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them. 7. Resultantly, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. Resultantly, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.