SHEIK DAWOOD Vs. LENA FINANCE PARTNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the instant Revision Petition is to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.08.2016 passed in I.A.No. 585 of 2014 in O.S.No.242 of 2002 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that he is the 9th defendant in the original suit and he was impleaded in the said suit as per the order passed in I.A.No.585 of 2005 dated 14.12005. The said suit was filed by the Respondents/Defendants to recover the money, a sum of Rs. 4,18,6365/- based on the chit transaction. However, on 08.03.2006 an ex parte decree was passed as against all the defendants. Further, on the date of the ex parte order the revision petitioner was in Saudi Arabia and on his behalf an Advocate namely Mr.Venkatesan was instructed to appear. However, the said Advocate Mr.Venkatesan was died and the fact of the death of the advocate came to the notice of then revision petitioner belatedly. Further, when the revision petitioner came down to India, he noticed that an Execution Petition in E.P.No.205 of 2006 was filed and in the said Execution Petition an order of attachment was also passed. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to the notice of this court that the 3rd defendant filed an application to condone delay in filing the application to set-aside the ex parte decree. The said interim application in I.A.No.333 of 2007 was allowed by the learned Trial Court. However, against the order passed in the aforesaid I.A.No. 333 of 2007, a revision petition was preferred before this Hon'ble Court but the same was dismissed. So, the benefit of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in favour of the 3rd defendant may be extended to the revision petitioner also.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit the revision petitioner was originally represented through his power agent namely one Mushtafa and during that time an ex parte decree was passed. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that pursuance to the ex parte decree dated 08.02006 Execution Petition was filed in E.P.No.205 of 2006 and an order of attachment was passed therein. Apart from that after a period of 7 years of the filing of Execution Petition, the revision petitioner filed the instant petition. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the revision petitioner not only appeared in the Execution Petition proceedings but he also filed his counter therein. At the same time, intentionally he did not file the petition to set aside the ex parte order immediately even after his appearance in the execution proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.