TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to destroy rights of parties, but to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. The parties ought to be vigilant in Court proceedings and the duty of the parties to conduct the case and contact their advocate in proper - it is their bounden duty for the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 that they would appear before the Court regularly without absenting themselves and verifying about the status of the case - revision petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - CRP (NPD) No.2161 of 2011 And M.P.No.1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 1-11-2016 - Mr. M. V. Muralidara J. For the Petitioners : Mr.T.Murugamanikkam For the Respondents : Mr.V.S.Kesavan (for R2) No Appearance (for R1) ORDER The defendants 2 and 3 are the petitioners before this Court. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is daughter and the second plaintiff is wife of the first defendant viz., S.N.Natarajan. The suit schedule of properties was inherited as per the partition deed dated 09.02.1987 as partitioned between the first plaintiff and the first defendant and the said property is in ancestral property. As per the above partition deed dated 09.02.1987, half o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the circumstances, on 20.11.1999, the plaintiffs has sent a lawyer notice to the defendants, but the notice sent to the first defendant is returned and the defendants 2 and 3 were received, no reply was given. Therefore, even after the receipt of the above notice, the defendants particularly, the first defendant has not come forward either to cancel the sale deed dated 27.09.1999 or paying the maintenance amount at the rate of ₹ 1,500/- per month and the marriage expenses of ₹ 75,000/- till date to the plaintiffs. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the plaintiffs were approached the learned Subordinate Court, Bhavani and filed the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2000 for declaration declared the sale deed dated 27.09.1999 is not valid and for partition of suit schedule of property in to two share and for maintenance at the rate of ₹ 1,500/- per month to the second plaintiff. 5. On receipt of summon, the third defendant alone has filed a written statement stating that he admitted that the plaintiffs are the daughter and wife of the first defendant. But, he denied that the partition deed dated 09.02.1987 was not taken place and denied the entire facts contained in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de application. Therefore, they prayed the Court for condoning the delay of 1600 days in filing the set aside application filed in I.A.No.295 of 2007. 10. On receipt of the notice, the respondents 1 and 2 were filed their counter by stating that the suit was filed for declaration and for maintenance, the petitioners filed for condoning the delay of 1600 days is not maintainable. In fact, the defendants 2 and 3 were received the summon from the Court in the suit on 30.06.2000 and the second defendant also engaged one Mr.S.Devendran, as an Advocate, but till 31.01.2003 i.e. more than 3 years, they have not filed any written statement in the suit and kept pending for more than 3= years. Apart from this, the respondents 1 and 2 were stated that for the huge delay of 1600 days, the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 were not given any explanation and as per the orders of this Court and the Hon ble Apex Court for each and every day delay they have to be given explanation or reasons. But, they were failed to give the same. Apart from this, the respondents 1 and 2 were stated that on 12.10.2000 itself, the second defendant N.Sengottaiyan was called in the open Court, but he was not appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bordinate Court, Bhavani, passed an exparte decree against the defendants 2 and 3 on the ground that they were not filed their written statement. Even after giving fair opportunity particularly on 22.02.2001 to 31.01.2003. But even then, they have not chosen to file their written statemen. Hence, they were set exparte. 15. Admittedly, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 should have filed the application for setting aside the exparte decree within a period of 30 days from the date of exparte decree. But, this application was filed after a long delay of 1600 days and there was no proper explanation given by the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3. 16. The Hon ble Apex Court time and again directed the parties to give proper explanation for each and every day delay, but they were not given any proper reasons in this case. During the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced two judgments referred by this Court is as follows:- (1) Subramaniam and another v. K.Veerakumar reported in 2014 (2) MWN (Civil) 74 (2) Mariappan v. Prema and others reported in 2013 (2) MWN (Civil) 347 17. In the case c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the Petition. Further, the Petitioners were unable to establish before the Court about the sickness by producing any record or evidence. 16. Thus the Petitioners having been guilty of gross negligence and laches, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. In the case reported in 2013 (2) MWN (Civil) 347, this Court has stated the reasons as follows: 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner / 2nd Defendant would place reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizada and others, 2000 (3) SCC 54, wherein it has been held as follows: Under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. an ex parte decree passed against a Defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either the summons were not duly served upon the Defendant or he was prevented by any sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of the Defendant in the case on the date of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case. In the present case, in earlier occasion also there was a delay of nearly 6 months and the Court condoned the delay on Application. In the present occasion also, the Defendants have come forward with Application for condonation of delay of 183 days. They have not shown sufficient reasons for the delay in approaching the Court within the statutory time specified. When the 2nd Defendant was unable to contact his Advocate, there is no embargo for the Defendants 1 3 to contact their Advocate. Further, the period of illness is absent in the Application. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner could not take recourse to the benefit of the above said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. The delay of six months on the part of the Petitioner shows their indifference towards the Court proceedings, because the case was in part heard stage. PW1 was examined in chief and was to be cross-examined by the Defendants and at that stage, they were absent. 9. The Court excepts the parties to be vigilant and sensitive on the proceedings of the Court and when the case was in the part heard stage, it is the duty of the parties to follow the conduct of the case and contact their Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
