SEKAR AND OTHERS Vs. IYAPPAN @ VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, as plaintiff has instituted the suit in O.S. No.1555 of 2013 for bare injunction to restrain the revision petitioners/defendants from in any manner interferring with his possession on the western side of the suit property while putting permanent fence. In the said suit, the revision petitioners/defendants did not appear to contest the suit, therefore, the Court below passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on 18.08.2014. On the strength of the ex-parte decree and judgment, the respondent/plaintiff also filed E.P. No.23 of 2015 to execute the decree. At this stage, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed I.A. No.922 of 2016 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 18.08.2014 and I.A. No.921 of 2016 to set aside the exparte decree and judgment dated 18.08.2014. The Court below by the order dated 21.07.2017 refuse to condone the delay of 778 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.08.2014, thereby dismissing I.A. No.922 of 2016 in O.S. No.1555 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that they were not served notice in the suit. The revision petitioners were not aware of the pendency of the suit and that the ex-parte decree has been passed without affording sufficient opportunity to them to defend the suit. Thus, according to the revision petitioners, the ex-parte decree and judgment is in violation of the principle of natural justice. On that ground, the petitioners sought for setting aside the impugned order. It is further contended that the Court below did not consider the bonafide reasons assigned by the revision petitioners for condonation of the delay and therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the Court below.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the revision petition, by contending that the trial Court, in exercise of its discretionary power, has rightly refused to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment. Further, the reasons assigned by the revision petitioners for condonation of the delay is not satisfactory. The revision petitioners have assigned vague and bald reasons to condone the inordinate delay of 778 days. In any event, such an application has been filed by the revision petitioner after receipt of notice in the suit as well as in the execution petition and that the revision petition lacks bonafide. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.