M.SARAVANAN Vs. N.PONNURANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No.2088 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order of the dismissal in I.A.No.3 of 2024 filed for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit in O.S.No.5014 of 2022.

(2.) The brief background of the case is as follows:

(3.) It is the contention of the revision petitioner in the application that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The petitioner's father in law, late S.Peter Devadoss had borrowed a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs from one Mr.Singaram, advocate and the said Singaram had obtained 6 cheques. Since, the petitioner's father in law was unable to repay the amount, an unregistered sale deed was executed by the petitioner's father in law. In the same deed, as per the instructions of the said Singaram, the sale amount was shown as Rs.12,75,000.00 in the document so that the income tax problem and stamp duty can be avoided, but assured that Rs.14,00,000.00 will be paid to the petitioner's father in law and handed over the unfilled cheques. Thereafter, Singaram paid Rs.8,00,000.00 and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000.00 has to be paid, however, the same has not been paid. Therefore, petitioner's father in law lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Vepery. In order to take revenge, the said Singaram had set up one Venkatesan and filed a suit as against the petitioner's father in law. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff who is set up by Mr.Singaram. According to the petitioner, there is no privity of contract. He has contended that though the summons in the above case had been served to the petitioner due to the sudden death of the petitioner's father in law, he had to take up the responsibility of the entire final rituals and family commitments. Therefore, he had handed over the summons in the above suit to one Dinesh Kumar to appear on the petitioner's behalf. Thereafter, Mr.Singaram met the petitioner and assured that he would inform the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. Hence, the petitioner was under the fond hope that the above suit will be withdrawn. However, the petitioner received a notice in E.P.No.3371 of 2023. Therefore, there was a delay of 348 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte order.