R JAGADEESAN Vs. SANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 7.8.2009 in I.A. No.723 of 2008 in O.S.No.151 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) LEGAL heirs of the deceased Jagadeesan are the petitioner herein in the Civil Revision Petition. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Suit against the deceased Jagadeesan for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,45,600/- with interest on the basis of the promissory note said to have been executed by the deceased on 15.3.1987. The Defendant in the Suit received suit summons, entered appearance and filed a Written Statement on 11.2.2002 denying the suit claim. The Suit was taken up for trial and the Respondent/Plaintiff was examined in chief on 10.8.2005. Since the Defendant and his Counsel failed to appear before the Trial Court to cross-examine the PW1, the Defendant was set ex parte and the ex parte decree was passed on 10.8.2005. On the basis of the ex parte decree, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.129 of 2007, in which, the Defendant entered appearance through his Counsel on 20.4.2007. Thereafter, the Execution Petition was posted on 22.6.2007 for filing Counter Statement. It was thereafter adjourned to 9.7.2007 & 17.8.2007, the Defendant/Respondent in the Execution Petition filed a Counter Statement. Thereafter, the Execution Petition was posted on several occasions i.e. on 24.9.2007, 23.10.2007, 5.11.2007, 10.12.2007, 25.1.2008, 10.3.2008 & 8.4.2008. The Petitioner in the Execution Petition viz., decree-holder was heard and adjourned for enquiry an behalf of the Respondent/Judgment-debtor on 9.6.2008 and the case was adjourned from time to time viz., on 24.6.2008, 7.7.2008, 8.8.2008, 9.9.2008, 20.10.2008 & 25.11.2000 for enquiry on the side of the Respondent/judgment-debtor.

(3.) HE also relied upon paragraphs 19 & 20 of the judgment in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and others, 2010 (6) SCC 786, and pleaded for setting aside the order. paragraphs 19 & 20 of the judgment read as follows: