G JEYACHANDRA Vs. DOMINIC BENSIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.320 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram and the suit was filed by the plaintiff, seeking the relief of recovery of money. In the suit, an exparte order was passed against the 1st defendant on 19.12.2016 on account of his non appearance. Therefore, the revision petitioner/1st defendant has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.165 and 269 of 2017, both for condoning the delay of 287 days in filing petition for setting aside the said exparte order and also to set aside the order dated 19.12.2016. Both the applications came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, on the ground that no proper reasons were assigned for the delay. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that he had purchased a Mahindra Van on payment of ready cash since the plaintiff was in need of money, the 1st defendant pledged his vehicle with the 2nd defendant for collateral security. On account of irregular payment by the plaintiff, the Bank had filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 1993, in which the revision petitioner remained exparte, taking into account the fact that the plaintiff was the actual borrower of money from the 2nd defendant. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that since the plaintiff had availed loan from the 2nd defendant, it is incumbent upon him to repay the amount, in which he has no role to pay and accordingly, he settled the amount with the 2nd defendant.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a suit against him by incorporating false averments in it and the said suit was decreed in his favour and an exparte order was passed. There was a delay occurred in filing a petition for setting aside the order, which was not entertained by the Trial Court on some flimsy reasons. The revision petitioner, in order to substantiate his argument that in the matter of exparte, the Court should decide the matter only on merits, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of N.Maheswari vs. Mariappan and others, (2013) 2 CTC 388, wherein it has been held as under: