IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
Sembuthu Arakkatalai Charitable Trust, Represented by its President Mr.K.P.Natarajan and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Palanivel – Respondent
CRP No.3726 of 2022 And CMP No.19670 of 2022
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Constitution Of India 1950 – Article, 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Present Civil Revision is filed against fair and decretal order assed in IA in IP on file of Sub Court – Held, Thus this Court is inclined to consider present Civil Revision Petition in order to provide one opportunity to revision petitioners to contest case on merits and in accordance with law – Considering facts and circumstances, fair and decretal order passed in IA in IP is set aside on condition that revision petitioners deposit a sum of in credit of IP, within a period of weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed automatically and order passed in IA in IP stands restored automatically – Petition allowed.
ORDER :
The present Civil Revision is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 27.08.2022 passed in IA No.5 of 2021 in IP No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court at Rasipuram.
2. The revision petitioners are the respondents 4 and 5 in IP No.2 of 2020. The revision petitioners were set ex-parte on 23.10.2021 since they have not filed counter-affidavit in the Insolvency Petition (IP).
3. The revision petitioners filed IA in IA No.5 of 2021 to set aside the ex parte order passed by the Trial Court. The Court adjudicated the grounds on which the Interlocutory Application was filed and dismissed the same on the ground that the reasons stated for setting aside the ex parte order are neither candid nor convincing.
4. The revision petitioners allowed the Court to pass ex parte order with an idea to drag on the proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court refused to consider the grounds raised by the revision petitioners to set aside the ex parte order.
5. The findings of the Trial Court reveals that the revision petitioners have wantonly avoided the proceedings though they had knowledge about the proceedings, which was pending before the Court concerned.
6. Despite the fact that they were aware of the proceedings, they have allowed the Court to pass ex parte order and therefore, the Court formed an opinion that such ill-motive of the litigants to drag on the proceedings cannot be encouraged.
7. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the findings made by the Trial Court in the order impugned.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the Interlocutory Application, the revision petitioners filed a memo of stating that they are ready to deposit a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in IP No.2 of 2020 and therefore, the Interlocutory Application filed by them to set aside the ex parte order is to be allowed. However, the Trial Court has not considered the said memo and dismissed the Interlocutory Application.
9. In view of the fact that the revision petitioners have filed a memo that they are ready to deposit a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in the credit of the IP No.2 of 2020.
10. Thus this Court is inclined to consider the present Civil Revision Petition in order to provide one opportunity to the revision petitioners to contest the case on merits and in accordance with law.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances, the fair and decretal order dated 27.08.2022 passed in IA No.5 of 2021 in IP N.2 of 2020 is set aside on condition that the revision petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-in the credit of IP No.2 of 2020, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed automatically and the order passed in IA No.5 of 2021 in IP No.2 of 2020 dated 27.08.2022 stands restored automatically.
12. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed on the abovesaid conditions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Conditions for setting aside an ex parte decree must be reasonable, and delays in filing applications must be adequately explained.
The court has the power to impose conditions for setting aside an ex parte decree, but such conditions should be reasonable and not oppressive.
A petitioner must provide a satisfactory explanation for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to warrant condonation of such delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when substantial evidence is available on record, and the Court exercises its powers under Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 17 Rule 3 of CPC, the rem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.