B RAMAN Vs. RAJA K RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the judgment debtor in O.S.No.263 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore filed by the respondents herein for recovery of money based on a promissory note.

(2.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

(3.) The respondent herein filed the said suit and the trial court passed an exparte decree on 19.10.2005. After two years from the date of the decree, the respondent/decree holder filed execution petition on 18.06.2007. Thereafter the petitioner/judgment debtor filed a petition in I.A.No.261 of 2006 to set aside the exparte decree. The said I.A. also came to be dismissed on 21.06.2006. During the pendency of the suit, there was an order of attachment before judgment of the property belonging to the petiitoner as early as 30.11.2004. It appears that the petitioner did not take any steps as against that order. Even after an exparte decree came to be passed on 19.10.2005 he filed an application to set aside the same only belatedly and the same was also dismissed on 21.06.2006. The petitioner did not take any steps to restore the said I.A. immediately and however filed E.A.No.496 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC to restore the I.A.No.261 of 2006 which came to be dismissed on 21.06.2006 and also E.A.No.497 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1067 days in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.261 of 2006. Apart from filing these two applications before the Executing Court, the petitioner also filed E.A.No.493 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 184 days in setting aside the exparte order passed in E.P.No.251 of 2007 on 31.03.2009. Another E.A.No.494 of 2009 was filed seeking for adjournment of the sale in execution proceedings and for stay of further proceedings. E.A.No.495 of 2009 is filed to set aside the exparte order dated 31.03.2009 passed in the said execution proceedings. All these five applications were taken up by the Court below and a common order was passed whereby all the applications were dismissed by holding that the petitioner did not show sufficient cause to condone the delay. Challenging the said common order, the above Civil Revision Petitions are filed before this Court.