Skip to content


M. Sivakumar Vs. Indian Bank, through its Branch Manager, South Masi Street Branch, Madurai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 2122 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 9963 of 2016
Judge
AppellantM. Sivakumar
RespondentIndian Bank, through its Branch Manager, South Masi Street Branch, Madurai
Excerpt:
.....23.6.2016 and allow the revision with costs. 2. according to the petitioner, the petitioner herein filed a suit in o.s.no.77 of 2011 before the principal district munsif court, madurai. the respondent did not file the written statement and an exparte decree was passed in the said suit on 30.4.2012. thereafter e.p.no.188 of 2012 was filed by the revision petitioner for execution of the decree in the main suit. in the said circumstances, on 30.9.2016, the respondent filed a petition in i.a.no.211 of 2014 under order 9 rule 9 of c.p.c to set aside the exparte order passed in the suit with a delay of 197 days. the said application was allowed. aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed before this court. the respondent herein also filed an application to.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records from the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2011 dated 23.6.2016 and allow the revision with costs.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to call for the records from the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2011 dated 23.6.2016 and allow the revision with costs.

2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2011 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai. The respondent did not file the written statement and an exparte decree was passed in the said suit on 30.4.2012. Thereafter E.P.No.188 of 2012 was filed by the revision petitioner for execution of the decree in the main suit. In the said circumstances, on 30.9.2016, the respondent filed a petition in I.A.No.211 of 2014 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C to set aside the exparte order passed in the suit with a delay of 197 days. The said application was allowed. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court. The respondent herein also filed an application to set aside the exparte order in execution proceeding in E.A.No.14 of 2013 and the same was dismissed for default and subsequently E.A.No.225 of 2014 was filed to restore the dismissal order made in E.A.No.14 of 2013. The said E.A was dismissed on 15.9.2016. In the said circumstances, the trial Court had allowed the condone delay application on the ground that an opportunity shall be given to the bank to contest the matter on merits. However, the Court below has passed orders and allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.2000/- payable to the Petitioner on or before 25.7.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred the present C.R.P before this Court.

3. Notice has been served on the respondent, but none appeared on behalf of them.

4. However, taking into consideration of the facts of this case, the Court below has rightly allowed the application on payment of costs for the reason that an opportunity shall be given to the respondent/Corporation. Since the delay is 197 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed in the main suit, following the dictum laid down in the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2013(5) LW Page 20,in the case of Esther Bhattacharjee .vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathapur Nafar Academy and others, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below. As far as the cost is concerned, this Court has enhanced the cost from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- and the respondent Bank has to pay the said cost to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the order passed in I.A.No.211 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2011 stands dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

5. The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed with above modification. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //