LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-895

E. RAMAR Vs. S. PANDI NADAR

Decided On January 30, 2019
E. Ramar Appellant
V/S
S. Pandi Nadar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dtd. 14/6/2010, passed in I.A. No. 262 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 2 of 2006. The above suit has been laid by the respondents / plaintiffs based on a mortgage deed. It is seen that the petitioner / defendant had entered appearance in the abovesaid suit and also filed the written statement and thereafter, when the suit was listed for trial, inasmuch as the petitioner / defendant had failed to turn up, it is seen that the preliminary decree had been passed in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs on 6/9/2006. Following the same, it is noted that the respondents / plaintiffs had preferred I.A. No. 36 of 2007 for passing the final decree in the matter and it is also seen that in the abovesaid application, notice had been duly served on the petitioner / defendant and despite the same, inasmuch as he had failed to contest the abovesaid application, he had been set ex parte in the abovesaid proceeding also and ultimately, the final decree had been passed in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs on 11/9/2007. Thereafter, it is seen that the respondents / plaintiffs have preferred execution proceedings in E.P. No. 16 of 2008 against the petitioner / defendant and only thereafter, it is found that the petitioner / defendant has come forward with an application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree passed against him in the main suit. Inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 650 days in preferring the abovesaid application, to condone the said delay, the petitioner / defendant has preferred I.A. No. 262 of 2008.

(3.) The reasons given by the petitioner / defendant for the delay is that though his Advocate has informed him about the date of trial, at that point of time, as he was at Kerala for eking out his livelihood, he was unable to appear in the Court and accordingly, the ex parte preliminary decree had come to be passed against him. Further, he would also state that though he had received the notice in I.A. No. 36 of 2007, the application preferred by the respondents / plaintiffs for passing the final decree, according to the petitioner / defendant, as at that point of time, he was suffering from jaundice and taking treatment with reference to the same at Kerala, he was unable to contest the said application and consequently, the final decree had come to be passed in the matter on 11/9/2007. The above are the reasons projected by the petitioner / defendant for the delay.