GOWRI AMMAL Vs. V RAMALINGAM ALIAS V THILAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the revision petitioners is that they have filed civil suit in C.S.No.845 of 2006 before this Court as against the respondents herein/ defendants. The suit is for specific performance and came to be filed on the strength of sale agreement dated 21.01.2005 executed by the respondents in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit the 1st respondent herein and other respondents being the defendants in the suit entered appearance through their respective counsels. Further more almost a majority of the respondents/ defendants are resident of same house. Being so the above civil suit in C.S.No.845 of 2006 was transferred from this Court to the City Civil Court of Chennai (XIV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai) and the suit came to be renumbered as O.S.No.12610 of 2010. Thereafter the defendants / respondents herein wantonly and willfully besides deliberately, having due knowledge that about the transfer as well as the renumbering and further proceedings of O.S.No.12610 of 2010, has remained ex-parte. Since the 1st respondent herein purposefully not attended the proceedings in O.S.No.12610 of 2010, he was called absent and hence was set ex-parte. Therefore the suit came to be decreed in favor of the revision petitioners/ plaintiff. Therefore the revision petitioner filed E.P.No.3081 of 2011 and the same is presently pending before IX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai. Wherefore notice was served on the respondents herein in the above said E.P.No.3081 of 2011. At this point of time though the respondent has purposefully remained ex-party, as if he was unaware of the above said transfer of C.S.No.845 of 2006 from this Court to the City Civil Court of Chennai (XIV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai), came up with an Interlocutory Applications in I.A.No.31 and I.A.No.32 of 2013 with the former to condone the delay of 673 days in filing the set aside application and the latter through the set aside the ex-parte decree dated 21.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.12610 of 2010. There was a total delay of above 673 days in filing the above said set aside application.

(2.) The sole reason stated for the reason of non appearance of the respondent herein is that he was totally unaware of the transfer of the suit and its further proceedings. It was further contented that the 1st respondent /defendant was not in a position to appear to trial Court, since there was no notice issued in O.S.No.12610 of 2010 from City Civil Court of Chennai (XIV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai), whereas the respondent got knowledge of the ex-parte decree only on receipt of notice in the execution proceeding in E.P.No.3081/2011 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai. Other than that there was no reason stated.

(3.) The said reason put forth by the respondents herein is unsustainable and untrue and hence the same is liable to be rejected. The respondents/ defendants despite remind ex-parte wantonly, cannot file such application blaming the Court.