SUNDARLAL Vs. MADHUSUDHANAN RETNALAYAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.83 of 2011, a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. When the case was taken up for trial on 1.9.2015, the appellant/first defendant did not appear before court. Based on the evidence adduced by the first respondent/plaintiff, an exparte decree was passed on 29.9.2015.

(2.) The appellant filed I.A.No.971 of 2015 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 before the court below to set aside the exparte decree which came to be dismissed as per the impugned order dated 27.2.2016. One of the main contentions urged by the appellant was that he met with an accident on 30.8.2015 and he was advised to take rest for three days. Subsequently, swelling developed on his back and knee and he was undergoing Ayurvedic treatment. Hence, he was unable to instruct the counsel in the matter and contest the case.

(3.) The court below dismissed the application arriving at the finding that though the case was taken up on 1.9.2015, even assuming that he has met with an accident and he could not appear before court, the application was filed on 26.10.2015 when the decree was passed only on 29.9.2015. The appellant had all the time to appear before court and file an application at the earliest point of time and he only waited for the decree to be passed.