IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.09.2021 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(NPD).No.3445 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 The Tamil Radhasoami Satsang Assn., Rep. by Madras Branch Secretary, No.13, Kenneth Lane, Chennai – 600 008. .. Petitioner Vs.

The Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu rep. by Member Secretary, 116-A, Periyar EVR High Road, Nehru Park, Chennai – 600 084. .. Respondent Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order dated 20.04.2015 made in I.A.No.97 of 2014 in O.S.No.11071 of 2010 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.V.Prasad For Respondent : Mr.K.Azhagu Raman

O R D E R

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 20.04.2015 made in I.A.No.97 of 2014 in O.S.No.11071 of 2010 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.11071 of 2010 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, filed the said suit against the respondent for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The respondent remained exparte and exparte decree was passed on 29.02.2012 in O.S.No.11071 of 2010. The respondent filed I.A.No.97 of 2014 to condone the delay of 873 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

3.According to the respondent, he filed written statement and the suit was decreed exparte earlier and the set aside petition was filed during the period of predecessors through the earlier counsel. The respondent was under the impression that set aside petition was pending. Meanwhile, there was change of officers and counsel and there was no proper communication in the matter. The petitioner filed E.P. and only after receipt of notice in the E.P., the respondent came to know about the exparte decree passed in the suit on 29.02.2012. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for allowing the I.A.

4.The petitioner herein filed counter affidavit and submitted that the reason given by the respondent is not genuine and it is unbelievable that the respondent was under the impression that earlier petition filed to set aside the previous exparte decree was pending years together. The respondent has not given any details of change of officers and details of the previous persons who handled the matter. Further, the respondent has not stated when the respondent received notice in the E.P. and when they entered appearance. Even after taking number of adjournments after entering appearance in the E.P., they did not file counter. After six months of entering appearance in the E.P., they have filed the present petition. The reason given by the respondent is not valid and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5.The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit, allowed the I.A. on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).

6.Against the said order dated 20.04.2015 made in I.A.No.97 of 2014, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that respondent was continuously negligent and delay was condoned by showing sympathy to the respondent. According to the respondent, they came to know about the exparte decree after receiving notice in the E.P. proceedings. Notice in the E.P. proceedings was served on the respondent on 24.01.2014, but, the respondent filed the present I.A. only on 22.07.2014, after 6 months of knowledge. The learned Judge having held that reason given by the respondent is not sufficient and acceptable, erroneously allowed the I.A., holding that relief claimed in the suit is for mandatory injunction and also the respondent is an organised body. The finding of the learned Judge is illegal and con