C.R.P. (NPD) No.2424 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.15857 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2424 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.15857 of 2019

Krishnamoorthy

...

Petitioner /

Defendant

versus

Ganesan

...

Respondent /

Plaintiff

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated

27.02.2019 made in I.A.No.236 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2017 on the file of

the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.Paramasivadoss

For Respondent

: Mr.Rajesh Babu

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2424 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.15857 of 2019

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated

27.02.2019 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli in I.A.No.236

of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2017.

2.

The respondent filed O.S.No.40 of 2017 claiming a sum

of Rs.2,56,867/- and interest @ 12% on the principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- on the basis of promissory note said to have been executed by

the petitioner in favour of the respondent. The petitioner was set ex parte for

not filing the written statement. The petitioner filed I.A.No.236 of 2018

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 268 days in

filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. This petition came to be

dismissed. Against the said dismissal order, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the

petitioner has not executed the suit promissory note. He borrowed money

from some third party and that documents signed by him at the time of

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2424 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.15857 of 2019

borrowing money from third party, is now being used by the respondent for

creating suit promissory note and for filing of the suit. Therefore, he prayed

for setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli and for

allowing the delay condonation petition.

4.

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that, the petitioner stated in his affidavit that, "the suit promissory

note was forged. His counsel has to get true facts about the suit promissory

note. He was not able to gather information and file written statement in

time". He further submitted that, during the course of cross examination of

P.W.1, the petitioner herein admitted that, the documents filed as Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.7 were available in his hands and there was no delay caused in

securing these documents. It is also his submission that, the claim made in

the affidavit that, there was a delay in securing these documents, is not

correct. Relying on these admissions, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that it is seen from this particular evidence of the petitioner that,

the reason stated by him in the petition filed for condonation of delay and in

the proof affidavit for the delay in filing the petition, is not true. Therefore,

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2424 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.15857 of 2019

the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli has rightly dismissed the petition

and he prayed for dismissal of this petition and confirming the order.

5.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the

records.

6.

As narrated above, the suit was filed for recovery of

money. The petitioner has not filed written statement and therefore, he was

set ex parte. In the petition filed for condoning the delay, it is claimed that

the Advocate wanted to gather true facts about the promissory note and

therefore, the written statement could not be filed in time. This is not a valid

reason for not filing this document in time. That apart, in the proof affidavit

filed at the time of examining him as P.W.1 in I.A.No.236 of 2018, he

claimed that, there was