S MADANA GOPAL Vs. P JAYAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.221 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur for declaration and mandatory injunction. The respondents have filed written statement on 19.06.2017. Thereafter, the respondents were set ex-parte and ex-parte decree was passed. The respondents have filed an application in IA.No.1003 of 2017 to condone the delay of 387 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 27.04.2016. The court below, without considering the objection of the revision petitioner, has allowed the application on payment of cost. Challenging the aforesaid order, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the court has observed that the respondents herein have not satisfied the court for condoning the delay of 387 days. However, in the interest of justice and also by considering the nature of the relief as sought for in the prayer, the aforesaid application was allowed. Further, the court has failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Others,2010 CDJ 575, wherein it has been held that "proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5 of the Limitation Act" and in the present application there is no sufficient cause has been shown by the respondents. Hence, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the respondents have stated sufficient reasons by stating that the first respondent is the only person conducting the suit on behalf of the other respondents and after filing vakalat, his earlier counsel informed that he will inform the first respondent about the status of the case. Being an agriculturist / cooli, the first respondent went to Andhra Pradesh for agriculture labour work. He was unable to contact the counsel at the time. There was no communication between the first respondent and the counsel and after returning from Andhra Pradesh, in the month of May 2016, he was suffering from jaundice and the doctors advised him to take rest and not to move out of the bed. After that, the first respondent went to Assam and stayed with his son for six months and unable to contact the counsel. Thereafter, he came to know after receiving notice in the execution petition and immediately contacted the present counsel and filed the present application before the court below. The court below has rightly allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.