M. G. DURAISAMY Vs. G. JAYAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 21/7/2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.208 of 2019.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in the Suit and the respondent instituted a Suit for recovery of money based on simple mortgage deed. The petitioner allowed the Trial Court to pass an exparte decree and subsequently, filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2021, after a lapse of about 200 days to set aside the exparte decree. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues and made a finding that the Suit has been instituted by the plaintiff based on a registered mortgage deed executed by the defendant. Thus, the Suit is not for specific performance as stated by the revision petitioner.

(3.) The revision petitioner / defendant had already filed his written statement, and not denied the mortgage executed by him in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. The Trial Court further found that several hearing dates were granted to the revision petitioner / defendant for cross-examination of PW1, which was not availed off by the defendant. However, the revision petitioner / defendant filed an affidavit, stating that he could not appear before the Trial Court and file the written statement, since he was sick. It is further stated by the defendant that the plaintiff has filed the main Suit for specific performance, which is also found to be incorrect. Thus, the Trial Court formed an opinion that the revision petitioner / defendant approached the Court with incorrect facts. The petition was filed to drag on the proceedings and more so, in his written statement, he has not denied the mortgage deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. More so, the reason stated for the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree was also not candid and considering the fact and circumstances, Trial Court dismissed the application.