O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed by the Civil Revision Petitioner under Order 37 Rule 4 of C.P.C seeking to set aside exparte decree passed against him on 26.09.2019 in a summary suit and also seeking leave to defend the suit.

2. The respondent herein filed a summary suit under Order 37 of C.P.C., seeking recovery of Rs.76,42,234.15/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., on the said principal sum. According to the respondent/plaintiff it is a reputed freight forwarding logistics and supply chain management service provider in India and around the world. The petitioner/defendant is carrying on business, inter alia, offering fuel management systems as well as manufacture of pumps, emission control parts and various components etc., for the automotive sector. It was averred in the plaint of the respondent that it agreed to deliver the petitioner's products to a “bonded warehouse”in El Paso, USA, to enable petitioner's customers (consignee) to collect the products from the bonded warehouse. As per the agreement, the consignment of the petitioner's products has to be shipped from Chennai Port to a bonded warehouse situated in a free trade zone in El Paso, U.S.A., from where the consignee namely, the petitioner's customers in U.S.A would collect the consignment. It was also agreed that all the charges including charges for use of bonded warehouse and handling charges for storage of petitioner's products quoted in U.S dollars have to be paid by the petitioners in rupee equivalent to the respondent in India. It was also agreed as per the agreement the products of the petitioner were shipped to and stored in bonded warehouse at El Paso, U.S.A. However, the petitioners products were not cleared from bonded warehouse by petitioner's customers (consignees). Hence, the consignment had been retained in bonded warehouse for some more time until the same was cleared by petitioner by making arrangement to bring the same to Chennai from U.S.A. The respondent averred in his plaint that from 08.08.2014 to 19.03.2018 as many as 32 invoices raised by the respondent remained unpaid for the services rendered by him under the agreement. The present summary suit was laid by respondent for recovery of the said amount. After service of summons in the suit, the petitioner failed to appear in response to the summons and hence it was set exparte on 07.08.2019. Subsequently, exparte decree was passed on 26.09.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 to set aside the exparte decree and also seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit on 15.10.2019. In support of the said petition petitioner had filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned that after service of summons the suit came up for hearing for the first time on 07.08.2019. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to appear on 07.08.2019, as she misplaced the vakalat executed in her favour for appearance. Further it was stated that as the advocate who was engaged was suffering from some kind of illness, fresh vakalat could not be executed in her favour immediately. It was further averred on 12.09.2019 counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and made a request to the Court to adjourn the matter for a short time to enable the petitioner to file a petition to set aside exparte order passed against it on 07.08.2019. It was asserted that in pursuance of the request made by the counsel, the Court below pleased to adjourn the matter to 04.10.2019 under the caption exparte evidence. It was further averred that the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Court on 04.10.2019 with appropriate petition supported by affidavit to set aside the exparte order. But strangely she found that the matter was not listed and on enquiry and perusal of online status the counsel came to the know that the suit stood posted on 26.09.2019 for recording exparte evidence and judgment was pronounced by