Engagement of counsel indicates awareness of legal proceedings and imposes a duty on the party to follow the case till its logical end.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.7606 of 2017 in O.S.No.83 of 2017 dated 03.11.2018 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.83 of 2017 (C.S.No.874 of 2001) on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff herein has filed the above suit in C.S.No.874 of 2001 contending inter alia that the defendants have approached the 1st respondent/plaintiff for purchase of machinery on hire purchase. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the 2nd respondent/1st defendant herein is the principal debtor and the 2nd defendant/revision petitioner herein stood as a guarantor guaranteeing due payment of the loan amount by the 1st defendant/2nd respondent. According to the plaintiff, an hire purchase agreement dated 12.12.1995 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants pursuant to which, the 1st defendant paid certain amounts and thereafter committed default. Therefore, the plaintiff attempted to re-posses the secured assets. But, it was prevented by the defendants. The defendants filed O.S.No.4447 of 2000 before the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff to take possession of the machinery, pending the suit. Thereafter, several demands were made by the plaintiff, but the defendants neither surrendered the machinery nor paid the loan amount. Therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,53,964.96/- with interest at the rate of 36% per month from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

3. It appears that the suit was decreed ex-parte on 23.06.2009 inasmuch as the defendants did not turn up to contest the suit.

4. It is seen from the records that the ex-parte decree could not have been executed by the plaintiff inasmuch as the address of the defendants is not known to the plaintiff. At this stage, the suit in C.S.No.874 of 2001 stood transferred to the Court below and renumbered as O.S.No.83 of 2017 on the ground of enhance of pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. It is at this stage, the revision petitioner/2nd defendant has filed instant I.A.No.7605 of 2017 before the Court below praying to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment dated 23.06.2009 and to restore the suit. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.7606 of 2017 praying to condone the delay of 2555 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed by this Court in C.S.No.874 of 2001.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.7606 of 2017 it was stated that the petitioner never received any notice in the suit and he was not aware of the pendency of the suit at all. He was in service working with LIC Corporation and until his retirement on 13.06.2010, he did not receive any notice. After his retirement, he settled down at Chennai and residing along with his family. While so, only on 14.06.2016 the Recovery Officer attached the plaintiff Company and called upon him to meet him and it was on that date only, he came to know about ex-parte decree that has been passed in the suit on 23.06.2009. Even though, he requested for a copy of the decree and judgment, it was not served on him. Therefore, the application in I.A.No.7606 of 2017 was filed praying to condone the delay of 2555 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 23.06.2009. The application was contested by the plaintiff by specifically contending that in the suit notice was served on the defendants and on behalf of the defendants an Advocate by name M/s.A.Babu and Murali also entered appearance on 17.01.2002 itself. Having engaged an advocate, the defendant failed to defend the suit by filing written statement. It is in those circumstances, the suit came to be allowed ex parte by setting the defendants e