P RATHINASAMY Vs. M CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, made in I.A.No.16/2005, an application to condone the delay of 273 days to review the decree in O.S.No.138/99 is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation on the side of the respondent. 3.It was a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. On contest, the suit was decreed on 8.3.2004. After the decree was passed, an application was filed in order to review the decree originally passed, stating that the interest that was claimed was exorbitant at the rate of 24%, and thus, it has got to be reduced by way of a review. For that purpose, an application was to be filed. At that time, there was a delay of 273 days. In order to condone the said delay, the instant application was filed. The lower Court dismissed the application. Hence, this revision before this Court. 4.At the time of hearing of the revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was a delay of 273 days, and the delay has got to be ordinarily condoned and that too, in a review application filed to bring to the notice of the Court that there was an exorbitant rate of interest that was made at the time of the passing of the decree, and the same also came to the knowledge of the defendants/revision petitioners only after the service of the E.P. notice, and under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside. 5.This Court is unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It was a suit for recovery of money. It was also admitted that 24% interest was actually asked for in the plaint, and 21% from the date of the plaint till realisation of the decree amount. This Court is unable to see any rate of interest in excess that has been granted. If they are aggrieved by the rate of interest, there is no question of any review. Under the circumstances, the review application cannot be maintained. Now, the application was filed to condone the delay of 273 days. Having participated in a suit for recovery of money and suffered a decree on contest, now, they cannot be permitted to say that they came to know about the rate of interest only after the service of the E.P. notice. In such circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in pointing to the fact that there was no reason adduced for excusing the delay. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is sustained. 6.In the result, this civil revision petition fails, and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.