Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 11 (MAD)

M. Mani v. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu (P) Ltd.

2023-01-02

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2023
ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.04.2017 passed in E.P.No.2375 of 2016 in A.R.C.No.71 of 2014. 2. It is not in dispute that the decree was passed in A.R.C.No.71 of 2014 instituted by the M/s.Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Limited. The 1st respondent/decree holder, in order to execute the decree filed E.P.No.2375 of 2016. The Execution Court considered the facts and circumstances and found that an award was passed on 07.05.2014 in A.R.C.No.71 of 2014 and despite the service of notices to the revision petitioner/judgment debtor, he was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Thus, the revision petitioner was set exparte on 14.03.2017. Further, there was no appeal filed against the decree passed and consequently, the Execution Court passed an order on attachable portion of the salary of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor towards satisfaction of the award. 3. Pertinently, the orders in the Execution Petition passed on 26.04.2017 and the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on 22.12.2022 with a delay of 1966 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Un-condonable delay cannot be condoned by the Courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the revision petitioner was not aware of the order passed in Execution procedures. However, the fact remains that the notice issued by the Court was served to the revision petitioner and he was set exparte on 14.03.2017. Even after passing of the award, the petitioner has not chosen to prefer any appeal. 5. The present revision petition is filed after with a delay of 1966 days and the reason stated for condoning such an enormous delay neither candid nor convincing. Long delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any acceptable reasons. Such reasons are to be substantiated with relevant records. In the present case, the order passed in the Execution proceedings dated 26.04.2017 reveals that notice was served to the revision petitioner and he was set exparte on 14.03.2017 itself. That being the factum, the petitioner has not raised any acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the order and the reasons stated for condoning delay of 1966 days is also unacceptable. 6. For all these reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.22776 of 2022 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.R.P.SR.No.143705 of 2022 stands rejected.