IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Maniammal @ K. Mani & Another – Appellants
Versus
M.V. Ranjendran & Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 989 of 2023 & C.M.P.No. 9127 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - Execution of Decree - O.S.No.608 of 2012, E.P.No.181 of 2020 - The court found that the appellants had deliberately failed to file a counter and their attempt was only to delay the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and the possession was ordered to be handed over to the first respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, as judgment debtors, had suffered a decree in a Suit for Specific Performance in O.S.No.608 of 2012. The first respondent, the decree holder, filed E.P.No.181 of 2020 to obtain possession of the property from the appellants. The appellants remained exparte in the execution petition and subsequently filed a petition to set aside the exparte order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had deliberately failed to file a counter and their attempt was only to delay the proceedings. The court dismissed the applications filed to set aside the exparte order.
Issues: Deliberate failure to file a counter, attempt to delay the proceedings, and the request for additional time to hand over possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the deliberate failure of the appellants to participate in the proceedings and their attempt to delay the execution of the decree.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the possession was ordered to be handed over to the first respondent by a specified date.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 43 of Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.11.2022 in E.A.No.1 of 2022 in E.P.No. 181 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)
1. The above appeal has been filed against an order passed in E.A.No.1of 2022 in E.P.No.181 of 2020 on the file of the learned III AdditionalDistrict Judge, Coimbatore.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are as follows:-
(a) The appellants are the Judgment Debtors and had suffered adecree in a Suit for Specific Performance in O.S.No.608 of 2012 on the fileof the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The first respondentis the Decree holder. He filed E.P.No.5 of 2018 against the JudgmentDebtors for execution of the Sale Deed. Since the appellants did not comeforward to execute the Sale Deed, the Court had executed the registered SaleDeed dated 19.02.2020 in favour of the first respondent. The appealfiled against the decree in O.S.No.608 of 2012 was dismissed on the groundthat there was a delay of 1176 days in filing the appeal. The appellants havenot challenged the said Order passed by this Court. The first respondentthereafter filed E.P.No.181 of 2020 directing the appellants and otherJudgment Debtors to deliver the possession of the property.
(b) In the said E.P.181 of 2020, the appellants and other JudgmentDebtors remained exparte and an exparte Order against the appellants was2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judispassed on 06.07.2022. The appellants thereafter filed E.A.No.1 of 2022praying for setting aside the said exparte Order.
(c) In E.A.No.1 of 2022, the first respondent herein filed a counterstating that the appellants and other Judgment Debtors have deliberatelyallowed the Court to pass an exparte Order and have filed the petition toset-aside the exparte Order on the next day. The attempt is only to preventthe first respondent from getting possession of the property.
(d) The learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore found thatthe appellants had deliberately failed to file counter on 06.07.2002 and theirattempt was only to delay the proceedings. Hence, finding that there was nomerit in the application filed by the appellants and the learned III AdditionalDistrict Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the applications filed to set aside theexparte Order.
3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellants have filed theinstant appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants/Judgment debtors submittedthat on 06.07.2022, the case was posted for counter, before the learned IIIAdditional District Judge, Coimbatore. However, the second appellant whowas taking care of the case could not reach the advocate office in time andinstruct him to file a counter and therefore, non-filing of the counter wasneither deliberate nor wilful and prayed that one more opportunity may begiven to contest the case.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/Decree Holder,per contra, submitted that the original Suit was filed for SpecificPerformance of an agreement executed in 2008. The respondent after payingthe sale consideration is unable to enjoy the property. The learned counselfurther submitted that it is now 15 years since the date of agreement.The appellants had challenged the decree in O.S.No.608 of 2012 before thisCourt and this Court had dismissed the appeal at the condone delay stage inC.M.P.No. 417 of 2002 since there was a delay of 1176 days in filing theappeal. The appellants have not challenged the said Order. While so, thedecree had become final. The Execution Petition filed by the first respondentin E.P.No.5 of 2018 was allowed and the Sale Deed also has been registeredagainst the first respondent by the Court. While so, the appellants havedeliberately abstained from the Court Proceedings. Theinstant application to set-aside the exparte order in EP.NO.181 of 2020 isonly to delay the del
AI
The main legal point established is that belated knowledge caused by domestic issues can warrant setting aside an ex-parte decree and granting an opportunity to defend the case on merits.
The discretionary power of the court in condoning the delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte order, and the need for valid reasons to substantiate apprehensions expressed by the appellan....
The discretionary power of the court in condoning delays in legal proceedings.
The importance of a valid and reasoned judgment in compliance with procedural requirements, considering the substantial rights of the parties and the hardship caused to the plaintiff due to the delay....
Delay in filing application to set aside ex-parte decree should be condoned when sufficient cause is established, especially in pending immovable property litigation.
Delay in condoning application to set aside ex parte decree cannot be excused without sufficient explanation and diligence.
Ex-parte judgment – Ex-parte judgment should show the application of minimum requirement of consideration of the pleadings, issues, evidence and the relief sought for rendering such judgment - Litiga....
The law favors diligence over indolence; mere claims of hardship without substantial evidence do not warrant the condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
Illness as a valid reason for non-appearance, subsequent developments in the case, and the need to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to contest the matter are valid grounds for delay condonat....
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.