Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M. Saravanan – Petitioner
Versus
N. Ponnurangam – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 2088, 2089, 2091 of 2024, C.M.P. Nos. 11163 to 11165 of 2024
Decided On : 08-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Sivaprakash
For the Respondent: T. Jayanthi
The court emphasized a liberal approach in interpreting 'sufficient cause' for delay, allowing the petitioner another chance to defend against an ex-parte decree.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLIII Rule 1 - Revision petitions challenging dismissal of applications to set aside ex-parte decree and condone delay - The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in considering sufficient cause for delay, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to defend the suit. (Paras 6, 9, 17)
(B) The court noted that the applications were closed without a dismissal, allowing for the revision to be maintainable despite the existence of an appellate remedy. (Paras 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- based on a dishonored cheque issued by the petitioner, who claimed no privity of contract and sought to set aside an ex-parte decree. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the dismissal of applications and directed the trial court to hear them on merits, considering the deposit made by the petitioner. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the revision against the closure of applications and the sufficiency of the cause for delay in filing. (Paras 6, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' is necessary to advance substantial justice, allowing the petitioner to defend the suit. (Paras 9, 18)
Result: Revisions allowed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal orders dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned XXII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. Nos. 3, 1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S. No. 5014/2021.
1......
(a) C.R.P. No. 2088 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order of the dismissal in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 filed for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit in O.S.No. 5014 of 2022.
(b) C.R.P. No. 2089 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order of the dismissal in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 filed to condone the delay of 348 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.01.2023 passed in the above suit.
(c) C.R.P. No. 2091 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order of the dismissal in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 filed to set aside the ex-parte order dated 05.01.2023 passed in the above suit.
2. The brief background of the case is as follows:
(a) The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a., According to the respondent, the petitioner approached him for a hand-loan for running his travel business and has executed a promissory note. After several request, the defendant/revision petitioner has issued a cheque on 27.04.2022 bearing No. 000002 drawn on the UCO Bank, Pallikaranai Branch in favour of the plaintiff. When the cheque was presented for encashment on 28.04.2022, the same was returned with a memo stating “Insufficient Funds.” Hence, legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 23.05.2022 for repayment of the borrowed amount and filed a suit. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 05.01.2023. Hence, the above applications were filed before the Trial Court and the same were dismissed. Challenging the same, these revisions.
3. It is the contention of the revision petitioner in the application that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The petitioner's father in law, late S.Peter Devadoss had borrowed a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from one Mr. Singaram, advocate and the said Singaram had obtained 6 cheques. Since, the petitioner's father in law was unable to repay the amount, an unregistered sale deed was executed by the petitioner's father in law. In the same deed, as per the instructions of the said Singaram, the sale amount was shown as Rs.12,75,000/- in the document so that the income tax problem and stamp duty can be avoided, but assured that Rs.14,00,000/- will be paid to the petitioner's father in law and handed over the unfilled cheques. Thereafter, Singaram paid Rs.8,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has to be paid, however, the same has not been paid. Therefore, petitioner's father in law lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Vepery. In order to take revenge, the said Singaram had set up one Venkatesan and filed a suit as against the petitioner's father in law. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff who is set up by Mr. Singaram. According to the petitioner, there is no privity of contract. He has contended that though the summons in the above case had been served to the petitioner due to the sudden death of the petitioner's father in law, he had to take up the responsibility of the entire final rituals and family commitments. Therefore, he had handed over the summons in the above suit to one Dinesh Kumar to appear on the petitioner's behalf. Thereafter, Mr. Singaram met the petitioner and assured that he would inform the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. Hence, the petitioner was under the fond hope that the above suit will be withdrawn. However, the petitioner received a notice in E.P. No. 3371 of 2023. Therefore, there was a delay of 348 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte order.
4. Counter has been filed by the respondent denying the entire allegations and submitted that the amount has been received by the petitioner/defendant for purchase of vehicle for his travel b
