RABIYA Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the judgment in CMA No.39/2018 of the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad and orders of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad in I.A No.2336/2014 and I.A No.2337/2014 in O.S No.280/2012.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the appellant in CMA No.39/2018 and the defendant in O.S No.280/2012. The respondent in this revision petition was the respondent in the appeal and the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) The case of the revision petitioner in the memorandum of civil revision petition, in brief, is that, the respondent had filed OS No.280/2012 seeking a decree for recovery of money on the strength of a pronote allegedly executed by the revision petitioner. The suit was decreed ex- parte on 20.12.2012. The revision petitioner filed I.A No.2336/2014 invoking Order IX Rule 13 of the Code to set aside the ex-parte decree and I.A No.2337/2014 under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 571 days. The revision petitioner was laid up due to a severe fracture on left tibia and arthritis on her left knee and she was under continuous medical treatment at Ganga Medical Centre and Hospitals Private Ltd, Coimbatore. She did not receive summons from the Trial Court regarding the pendency of the case. It was in the said circumstances that she did not appear before the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court without appreciating these aspects, passed the ex - parte decree. Immediately on receipt of the notice in EP 98/2013, the revision petitioner filed the above said applications to set aside the ex-parte decree and to condone the delay in filing the application. The revision petitioner also filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination. The Trial Court without appreciating these aspects by a cryptic order dismissed the applications on the ground that the revision petitioner had not shown sufficient cause and applications lacked merits.