MURUGAPPAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH by the impugned order the court below refused to condone the delay of 337 days in re-presenting the I.A for setting aside the ex-parte decree, I am of the view that the reasons given by the court below in passing the said order of rejection was well justified. The petitioner has displayed utter disregard for the court proceedings, which has landed him in the present situation. In fact, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.205 of 1990 which came to be decreed ex parte on 25.9.1991. The petitioner is stated to have filed an application for setting aside the said decree only on 24.12.1997 on the ground that he was aware of the said decree only when he received notice in the execution proceedings. If that was the ground on which the application came to be filed after nearly six long years, it is imperative that the petitioner should have been diligent in all respects in pursuing the said application filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree. On the other hand, the petitioner appears to have not pursued the said application for getting it numbered and for bringing it for orders before the court. The application which was returned on 10.2.1998 was re-presented only on 15.4.1999. According to the petitioner, admittedly the application which was returned by the office of the court below was misplaced in the counsel's office and could be traced out only on 7.1.1999. However, there is absolutely no explanation as to why it was not re-presented either on the same day or on the next day or within few days thereafter. But the application was admittedly re-presented, as could be seen from the present application for condonation of delay, only on 15.4.1999 i.e. nearly after three months from the date when the application was traced out in the office of the petitioner's counsel. If that was the indifferent attitude shown by the petitioner in pursuing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, no fault can be found with the order of the court below in holding that there was absolutely no bonafides in the petitioner's claim and that the laches on the part of the petitioner itself disentitled him from seeking for condonation of delay in re-presention.

(2.) I, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below in order to entertain this revision petition. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P is also dismissed. No costs.