IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2007 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM CRP.NPD.NO.2068 OF 2007 AND M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007 1.Jayakumar 2.Indira 3.Lalitha. ...Petitioners Vs Venugopalraj ...Respondent This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order and decretal order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.19995 of 2006 in O.S.No.4899 of 1996. For Petitioners: Mr..P.L.Narayanan For Respondent: Mr.A.Chandrasekaran --- O R D E R
An order of the XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai made in I.A.No.19995 of 2006 to condone the delay of 1025 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 19.12.2003 is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. An application was filed to condone the delay of 1025 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed on 19.12.2003 . It was the suit for damages. Written statement was filed. The matter was posted for trial on 19.12.2003. Since the defendant did not appear, he was set exparte. PW1 was examined and exparte decree was passed. Thereafter, an application was filed to set aside the exparte decree. While doing so, a delay of 1025 days was occasioned. In order to condone the said delay, I.A.No.19995 of 2006 was filed. No counter was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. On 11.1.2007, the Court below has passed the order stating “Counter not filed, perused records. No prejudice would cost. Petition allowed”. A very reading of the above order would clearly indicate that the officer has neither looked into the matter nor has applied his mind. It is admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that there was a delay of 1025 days in filing an application to exparte decree. Sufficient cause was not brought to the notice of the Court in order to condone the huge delay. The lower court has not adverted its attention over the same. On the contrary, it has stated that ‘no
prejudice would cost to the opposite party and hence the petition was allowed’.
4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the law requires that the Court should strictly go into the reasons adduced for such a huge delay. In a case like this, the amount of delay is not a matter, but sufficient cause is the matter. Even without considering the sufficient cause, the Court has mechanically allowed the application, that too further added “no prejudice would cost to the opposite party”. Hence, without any hesitation, the order of the lower court is set aside by remitting back the matter to the lower court. The revision petitioner is given four weeks time to file his counter and the lower Court is directed to restore the application, and after enquiry, the lower court shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
5. The Civil Revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.
VJY
TO
The Registrar,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.