SHRUTHI FABRICS FIRM Vs. SARVESH COTTON MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 and the petitioner/third defendant to set aside the order dated 27.08.2008 in I.A.Nos.823 of 2007 & I.A.No.825 of 2007 in O.S.No.213 of 2004 respectively on the file of Principal District Judge, Erode.

(2.) THE defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.213 of 2004 and the third defendant in the same suit are the revision petitioners before this Court. THE suit in O.S.No.213 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,95,965.50 with 12% interest. Written statement has been filed by the 2nd defendant and the suit is being contested. On 08.03.2006, the petitioners/defendants were called absent and they were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed. THEreafter, an application in I.A.No.823 of 2001 was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP.No.3135 of 2008 to condone the delay of 586 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.03.2006. Similarly, the revision petitioner/third defendant filed I.A.No.825 of 2007 to condone the delay of 586 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. Both the applications were resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. THE trial Court by an order dated 27.08.2008 allowed the applications by directing the petitioners/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in total, towards costs to the respondent/plaintiff and also directed the petitioners/defendants to deposit the decree amount of Rs.9,95,965.50 to the credit of the suit on or before 12.09.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petitions have been filed by the defendants in the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the trial Court committed an illegality by imposing the above said condition which are too onerous at the time of considering the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He further adds that courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering such applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.