Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Sri Balaji Papers International Private Limited – Petitioner
Vs.
Aspex Paper Australia Private Limited – Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos. 2272, 2273 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 11758 of 2016
Decided On : 10-08-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Krishnan for Mr. A. Sivaji.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Namasivayam.
Sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay in filing petitions, and the relevance of reasons provided for delay is crucial in determining the outcome of the case.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside an ex-parte decree and to condone the delay in filing the rejoinder affidavit, citing lack of sufficient cause and relevance of the illness of the company's director. The court applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited vs. Nahar Exports Limited and another (2015 (1) SCC 680) to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the fair and final order passed in a suit for recovery of a sum of money, where the trial court had passed an ex-parte decree due to the defendant's failure to appear.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and the rejoinder affidavit was not justified, as the reasons provided by the defendant, regarding the illness of the company's director, were deemed insufficient.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the defendant for the delay in filing the petition and the relevance of the illness of the company's director.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited vs. Nahar Exports Limited and another (2015 (1) SCC 680) to the present case, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to condone delay.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the defendant. The connected CMP was closed.
1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A. Nos. 13021 of 2012 and 13037 of 2013 in O.S. No. 8520 of 2009 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 8520/2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,00,236/- together with interest. Since the defendant failed to appear before the trial court, the trial court passed an ex-parte decree on 16.04.2010. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 13021 of 2012 to condone the delay of 828 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 16.4.2010.
3. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the defendant has stated that his father, who is the Director of the defendant Company, fell ill and therefore, the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, could not be filed in time. The affidavit was filed by the Managing Director of the Company.
4. When the Managing Director of the Company was very much available to file the application, the reason given by the Managing Director, that his father, who is the Director of the Company fell ill and therefore, the application could not be filed in time, cannot be accepted. The defendant is a Private Limited Company, represented by the Managing Director.
5. That apart, in the affidavit, the defendant has stated that the Director of the Company fell ill and therefore, the application could not be filed. Even the nature of the ailment was not stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition.
6. In the absence of any specific averments stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the inordinate delay of 828 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, was rightly rejected by the trial court.
7. In the said application viz., I.A. No. 13021 of 2012, the defendant also filed an application in I.A. No. 13037 of 2013 to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the rejoinder affidavit in I.A. No. 13021 of 2012. Even in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, in I.A. No. 13037 of 2013, the defendant has stated the very same reason, that has been stated in the petition in I.A. No. 13021 of 2012.
8. When the defendant Company is represented by its Managing Director, the illness of the Director of the Company has no relevance. Even the nature of the illness has not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
9. In the absence of sufficient cause, shown by the defendant, the delay cannot be condoned. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (1) SCC 680 (H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited vs. Nahar Exports Limited and another) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
