A.R.FAROOK Vs. PUGAZENDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in I.A.No.43 of 2020 in O.S.No.54 of 2016 dtd. 24/6/2020.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.54 of 2016. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dtd. 11/3/2015 in respect of the suit property. The suit was decreed exparte on 20/9/2017, after then nearby about 812 days later, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.43 of 2020 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. It was averred in the application that the petitioner was suffering from diabetes and jaundice for which he was taking native treatment at Walajah, Vellore District and the petitioner's senior paternal uncle who brought up the petitioner died in the year 2018, subsequently the son of his senior paternal uncle was died. Due to which, the petitioner was put to mental agony, hence he could not move out and he was not able to attend the court on 20/9/2017. The petitioner is having chance of success in the suit. Further, the petitioner came to know about the exparte decree when he received summons in E.A.No.31 of 2019. The delay is not a wilful one, which has occurred only because of the above said ailment.

(3.) A counter was filed by the respondents denying the above averments stating that, in the above suit, the petitioner appeared through an advocate on 28/11/2016. As he failed to file his written statement despite sufficient time of more than 8 months, the Court was pleased to order for summon on 22/7/2017. Even after the receipt of the summon, he has not chosen either to appear before the Court or to file his written statement in the above suit. Hence, the petitioner herein was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 20/9/2017.