SRINIVASALU Vs. KRISHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are illustrations as to how far parties can go in making false affidavits for the purpose of having an ex parte decree set aside. In a suit for money filed by the plaintiff, who is the respondent in C. R. P. No. 1099 of 1982, and is the respondent in C. R. P. No. 1484 of 1986, an ex parte decree was passed on 12th July, 1978. The defendants in the suit were a partnership firm consisting of defendants 2 and 3, defendant No. 1 being the partnership firm.

(2.) ON 25th April, 1981, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made accompanied by another application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The bald averments made in the application for condonation of delay with which atone we are concerned, were that the suit was transferred from the file of the Second Assistant City Civil judge, Madras, to file of the Sixth City Civil Judge, Madras, and that this fact was completely overlooked by the third defendant. It was also stated that there was a dispute between the second and the third defendants for the past four years prior to the date of the affidavit in the court at Coimbatore and consequently the suit in question could not be attended to.

(3.) THE present order allowing the petition for condonation of delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree appears to be obviously the result of a very liberal attitude and casual manner in which ex parte decrees are being set aside. I had two occasions earlier to refer to the casual manner in which ex parte decrees are passed and they are subsequently set aside. THE present case is a clear illustration which justifies the above observations. It is not possible to absolve the Courts from the blame for the tendency which is growing in the litigants to take ex parte decrees very casually and at leisure make applications for setting them aside on bald and general averments which are rarely scrutinised, with care which such applications and affidavits deserve, having regard to the stringent provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. In my view, the learned Judge was clearly in error in condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. THE order of the learned Judge is, therefore, set aside.