The court has the discretion to set aside an exparte decree in the interest of justice, allowing the petitioner/defendant to defend the suit by imposing conditions such as a deposit to the credit of the suit.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, against the order and decreetal order dated 03.08.2018 made in I.A.No.5424/2017 in O.S.No.528/2014 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order of dismissal passed in I.A.No.5424/2017 in O.S.No.528/2014 dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

2. Facts leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

The suit is of the year 2014 and it has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money. The petitioner/defendant has not received summons in the suit and as such he was set exparte. He came to know about the exparte decree only on 18.07.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.15338 of 2015 in O.S.No.528 of 2014, to condone the delay of 417 days in filing the petition to restore the above suit. The learned Judge, considering the averments made in the petition, allowed the same on 06.04.2017 with cost of Rs.1,000/- payable by the petitioner/defendant to the District Legal Aid Fund, Chennai. Upon making payment of cost, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.5424 of 2017 to set aside the exparte decree dated 18.07.2014. The said petition was dismissed on 03.08.2018, by the learned Judge, on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has not shown sufficient cause to set aside exparte decree passed against him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the petitioner is doing Real Estate business and other allied business. For developing the said business, he borrowed money from the respondent/plaintiff, by executing pro-note. While paying the loan amount, the respondent obtained signature in number of blank pro-notes from the petitioner and agreed to return the same, after repayment. On the strength of the same, the petitioner/defendant has signed the blank pro-notes. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant made number of payments in cash towards repayment of loan, and the respondent/plaintiff refused to give necessary receipts for one reason or the other. On the other hand, with the help of such pro notes, the respondent/plaintiff has filed 5 suits against the petitioner/defendant, on the same cause of action. Since the petitioner/defendant is doing business outside Chennai limit, like Vandavasi, Cheyyar and Thiruvannamalai, he is not available at Chennai and he was not served with any summons in all the suits. He would further submit that the respondent/plaintiff in a fraudulent manner obtained the exparte decree and trying to sell the immovable property belongs to the petitioner/defendant through public auction. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the exparte decree.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the suit has been filed for recovery of money. The suit was taken on file in O.S.No.528 of 2014 and the summons sent to the defendant were returned. Hence, paper publication was ordered. Even after, paper publication, the petitioner/defendant has not turned up and therefore, the Trial Court has passed the exparte decree on 18.07.2014. It is established that the petitioner/defendant had received the loan consideration by means of RTGS under UTR No.LAVBH10720000769 from A/c. No.0427351000008374 from the respondent/plaintiff, by executing promissory note. In respect of the said promissory note, the petitioner/defendant did not pay any money whatsoever either towards principal or towards interest. Further, the petitioner/defendant is not certain about the payments alleged to have been made to the respondent/plaintiff.

5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the suit is pending from the year 2014. The defendant admits the borrowal of money and the signature in the promissory notes. Though the defenda