RAJENDRAN Vs. VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in I.A.No.367 of 2016 in O.S.No.123 of 2009 dated 13.07.2017.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.123 of 2009 was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff, who is the brother of the petitioner/1st defendant, seeking a direction to the defendants therein to pay a sum of Rs.2,49,066.72/- with 18% interest. According to the petitioner, during 2009, due to some misunderstanding with his family, he has shifted his residence from Perambur to the respondent's/plaintiff's house at Maruthanallur and taking advantage of the above, the respondent filed a suit against him and obtained an ex- parte order by sending the suit notice to his previous address. The petitioner was set ex-parte on 08.03.2010. As soon as he came to know about the same, he has filed a condone delay petition, which was erroneously dismissed by the Court below and therefore, he seeks interference by this Court. The petitioner, to substantiate his claim, has produced a copy of the family card before the Court below to show that at the relevant point of time, he was living with his brother, however, the learned Judge did not consider the same while passing the above order.

(3.) Denying the allegations levelled by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit on 08.02010, the petitioner herein was set ex-parte and on 20.06.2013, ex- parte decree was passed against the petitioner herein/first defendant and the second defendant, who is none other than the son of the petitioner/first defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant alone challenged the said ex- parte, which was allowed and again the second defendant had allowed it set ex-parte on 15.07.2015 and again, a petition challenging the ex-parte decree was filed and the same was allowed on terms and the suit is, now, at the stage of cross examination. Suppressing these facts, the present interlocutory application was filed. Moreover, without challenging the ex- parte decree dated 20.06.2013, the present interlocutory application was filed challenging the ex-parte order dated 08.02010 and too, not within the period of limitation.