B. BASUVAN Vs. D. MATHEWS SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision is filed against an order passed in 15.09.2016 passed in I.A. No.760 of 2016 in O.S. No.149 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, dated 15.09.2016

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No.149 of 2014 for recovery of money for a sum Rs. 2,57,272/-, (Rs.1,50,000/- being the Principal amount) with interest. The aforesaid suit was set ex-parte and an exparte decree was passed on 21.07.2015. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an execution petition in which summons were sent to the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor. On notice, the revision petitioner/Judgment debtor filed the present application to condone the delay of 190 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In support of the aforesaid application, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating the reasons that he was working as a Clerk in Bank of Baroda and because of promotion to the post of Head Cashier and consequential transfer of his employment on 18.01.2012 and due to heavy work in the transferred place, he could not appear before the Court below and to contest the suit. Thus, according to the revision petitioner, the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree is due to a bonafide reason and reasons beyond his control. It was also stated that if the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. Inspite of the same, the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and ex-parte decree was passed in the year 2015. After filing the execution petition, the present application has been filed with a petition (i) to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree and (ii) to set aside the exparte decree. The reasons assigned in the application are not convincing and the application has been filed only to drag on the suit. There is no bonafide in the application filed by the revision petitioner in filing the present application and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the application.