Delay condoned for family illness on imposing heavy costs to balance parties' interests.

ORDER

The defendant is the civil revision petitioner.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as their ranks in the suit.

3.O.S.No.156 of 2022 was presented by the plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest. The suit has been presented on the foot of a promissory note. The suit was taken on file and summon was served on the defendant. The defendant was called upon to appear on 30.01.2023. He did not appear. Consequently, he was set ex parte. For a period of 11 months thereafter, he took no steps to set aside the ex parte order. This resulted in an ex parte decree being passed on 05.12.2023.

4.The plaintiff armed with the decree presented EP.No.18 of

2025 seeking to arrest the civil revision petitioner for having willfully defaulted in not honouring the decree. On coming to know of the same, the defendant rushed to the Court with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5.The plea that the defendant took to get the delay condoned was that his mother was sick with high diabetic level and blood pressure. Being a dutiful son, he was taking care of her health and consequently, he did not appear before the Court. This plea was stoutly resisted by the plaintiff. He pointed out that no records have been produced by the defendant to substantiate the plea of sickness. He further pleaded that the entire attempt of the defendant was only to drag on the matter and deny the plaintiff the fruits of the decree.

6.The learned Subordinate Judge at Periyakulam, on a consideration of the affidavit and petition, did not find sufficient cause in the application filed by the defendant. Consequently, he dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.

7.I heard Mr.P.Saravanan for the civil revision petitioner and Ms.P.Malini for the respondent.

8.The learned counsel reiterated the contentions they placed before the Court below.

9.I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. I have gone through the records.

10.Here is a suit for recovery of money on a promissory note.

The date on which the defendant was set ex parte and the date of passing of the ex parte decree are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has initiated execution proceedings in EP.No.

18 of 2025.

11.The plea of the defendant is that his mother was sick and hence, as a dutiful son, he was taking care of her. Ms.Malini is right that no record had been produced by the defendant to substantiate this plea. Mr.P.Saravanan points out that post the death of the defendant's mother on 13.06.2025, he had destroyed all the medical records relating to her treatment.

12.In order to condone the delay, a party will have to make out a sufficient cause. When one's parent, especially a mother, is sick and ailing, it would be unfair and uncharitable on the part of the Court to expect a party to rush to the Court to defend a suit and leave his aged parent in lurch. It is but natural that a son would take care of his parents.

13.While I see a 'good cause' for condonation of delay, the strenuous submissions made by Ms.Malini persuade me to impose costs at the time of allowing the application. Even if I were to accept that the defendant, for reasons beyond his control, had kept away from the Court, I have to take into consideration the plight of the plaintiff, who had proceeded further to recover the money. In order to balance the interests of both sides, as directed by the Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy