NOOR JAHAN Vs. PAPPIREDDIPATTY TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in o. S. No. 437 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Harur , The said suit is for injunction restraining the respondent-Town Panchayat from levying or collecting property-tax for door No. 10/48-A and for injunction restraining the said Panchayat from collecting property tax for door No. 10/48 in excess of Rs. 77-40 per year. Anex parte decree as prayed for was passed in the said suit on 11. 6. 1987 and there was a delay of 721 days in the defendant- panchayat filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Hence I. A. No. 425 of 1989 was filed by the said Panchayat to excuse the said delay, The said LA was allowed by the court below by order dated 5. 4. 1991 and against the said order this civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no sufficient grounds to condone the inordinate delay of 721 days. THE ground alleged in the affidavit in support of the said I. A. is as follows: THE suit was originally pending in the District Munsifs court, Dharmapuri and was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif's Court, Harur and the Government Pleader did not inform the Panchayat about the said transfer. Further, he told the executive Officer of the Panchayat that it was enough if the latter attended court after the former informed latter. Believing him, the said Executive Officer did not meet the said Government pleader. THErefore, the said executive officer could not get information as to where and by whom the case was conducted. He came to know of the abovesaid ex parte decree only on the date of the said affidavit, vis. , 7. 7. 1989.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the said ex parte decree alone, the abovesaid delay has occurred. But, to excuse the same. , there is no necessary averment either in the supporting affidavit, or in the deposition of P. W. 1. As already stated, in this context, the fact that the defendant has not been informed regarding the transfer of the suit, has no relevance in deciding the question whether the abovesaid delay subsequent to the ex parte decree, could be excused. Further, P. W. 1 has also admitted thus: So, there is clearly sheer indifference on the part of the defendant in not having filed the petition to set aside the ex parte degree in time. Therefore, despite the absence of any relevant averment for excusing the abovesaid delay which has occurred subsequent to the ex parte decree, either in the supporting affidavit or in the deposition of P. W. 1, the court below has allowed the abovesai d I. A. As already stated, the reasoning of the court below for allowing the said I. A. , that the counsel did not inform the defendant about the hearing date. This reasoning obviously cannot be applied for excusing the abovesai d delay, which has occurred only subsequent to the abovesai d hearing date when the abovesai d ex part e degree was passed. Therefore, it is clear that the court below has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.