Ilayaraja, v. Kasammal

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.09.2022, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.76 of 2015, on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni.

2.The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.76 of 2015, on the file of the Sub Court, Theni. The above suit has been filed by the respondent herein for a specific performance on an obligation undertaken by the first petitioner to the respondent under an Agreement dated 31.01.2014.

3.The petitioners were set ex parte earlier on 06.04.2016 for non-filing of the written statement. Therefore, they filed I.A.No.575 of 2017 to set aide the order setting them ex parte. By order dated 29.08.2017, the above said application was allowed. Thereafter, at the stage of cross-examination of the respondent's side witness, namely, P.W.1, the petitioners were once again set ex parte on 14.02.2019. The petitioners did not take any steps for setting aside the ex parte order immediately and filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 only on 06.10.2021, which has been dismissed by the Court below. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:- ''7. .... ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuH/1k; gpujpthjp jhth kDtpy; jdf;F kQ;rs; fhkhiy Neha; Vw;gl;L rpfpr;ir Nkw;nfhz;ljhfTk;> gpd; caH uj;j nfhjpg;G> rHf;fiu NehAk; mjpfhpj;J mjw;F kUe;J khj;jpiufs; cl;nfhz;L te;j epiyapy;> 2018k; Mz;L kPz;Lk; kQ;rs; fhkhiy mjpfhpj;J jiyRw;W the;jp kaf;fk; mbf;fb Vw;gl;L cly;ey FiwT Vw;gl;L ehl;L kUj;Jt rpfpr;ir kw;Wk; mNyhgjp rpfpr;irfs; Nkw;nfhz;ljhy; ntspapy; nry;y Kbahj #o;epiy Vw;gl;ljhfTk;> tof;F eltbf;iffis ftdpf;f ,ayhky; NghdjhfTk; fhuzk; njhptpj;Js;shH. Nkw;gb tof;fpy; 2> 3 kDjhuHfshd gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpduhf NrHf;fgl;Ls;s epiyapy;> Nkw;gb 2> 3 gpujpthjpfs; xU jiygl;r jPHg;ghiz gpwgpf;fg;gl;l gpd;G 1k; gpujpthjpf;F cly;epiy rhpapy;yhky; Nghd #o;epiyapy; tof;F eltbf;iffis Vd; Nkw;nfhz;L elj;jtpy;iy vd;gJ Fwpj;J kDtpy; fhuzk; vJTk; Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy. Vw;fdNt jhth tof;fpy; kDjhuHfSf;F vjpuhf 06.04.2016k; Njjp xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghiz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;L gpd; mjid uj;J nra;a ,.k.vz;.575/2017 vd kD jhf;fy; nra;J Nkw;gb kD mDkjpf;fg;gl;ljd; mbg;gilapy; xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghiz uj;J nra;ag;gl;L kPz;Lk; th.rh.1I FWf;F tprhuiz nra;a kDjhuHfs; Kd;tuhj fhuzj;jhy; xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghiz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. kDjhuHfSf;F kQ;rs; fhkhiy Neha; Vw;gl;L ehl;L kUj;Jtk; kw;Wk; mNyhgjp rpfpr;irfs; Nkw;nfhz;ljhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s NghjpYk;> mjid vLj;Jf;fhl;l vt;tpj rhl;rpfSk;

tprhhpf;fg;gltpy;iy.

Mtzq;fSk;

jhf;fy; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. kDjhuHfs; Vw;fdNt> vjpHtof;Fiu jhf;fy; nra;ahky; mry; tof;fpid 06.04.2016k; Njjp xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghizf;F tpl;Ltpl;L mjd;gpd;G mjid uj;J nra;a Ntz;b ,.k.vz;.575/2017 vd kD jhf;fy; nra;J Nkw;gb kDtpYk;> kQ;rs; fhkhiy Neha; fhuzkhf ehl;L itj;jpak; Nkw;nfhz;ljhf Fwpg;gpl;L ,k;kDtpid jhf;fy; nra;Jtpl;L jw;NghJ kPz;Lk; mNj fhuzq;fis $wp vt;tpj MtzKk; jhf;fy; nra;ahky; fhyjhkjj;jpid kd;dpf;f Ntz;b ,k;kDtpid jhf;fy; nra;Js;s epiyapy;> kDjhuH Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s fhuzq;fs; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sf;$ba tifapy; ,y;iy vd;gjhYk;> kDjhuH tof;fpid xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghizf;F tpl;Ltpl;L kPz;Lk; mjid uj;J nra;a eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;tij

thbf;ifahf

itj;Js;shH

vd;gjidAk; fUj;jpy;nfhz;L ghHf;Fk;NghJ> ,k;kDtpid js;Sgb nra;J cj;jutpLtNj ePjpapd; eyDf;F cfe;jJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ. cz;ikapy; 1k; kDjhuH/gpujpthjpf;F cly;epiy rhpapy;yhky; ,Ue;jpUe;jhy; kw;w kDjhuHfshd 2> 3 gpujpthjpfs; xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghizia uj;J nra;a chpa fhyj;jpw;Fs; eltbf;if vLj;jpUg;ghHfs;. Mdhy; ,t;tof;fpy; 2> 3 gpujpthjpfs; xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghizia uj;J nra;a Vd; eltbf;if vLf;ftpy;iy vd;gjw;fhd fhuzKk; kDtpy; Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy. mjd; mbg;gilapy; kDjhuHfs; jhf;fy; nra;Js;s ,k;kD Vw;Gilajy;y vd;Wk;> fhyjhkjj;jpw;fhf kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s fhuzKk; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sf;$ba tifapy; ,y;iy vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ. Kbthf>

,k;kD

js;Sgb

nra;ag;gLfpwJ. nryTj;njhif ,y;iy.''

4.A reading of the above indicate that the reason given by the petitioners appears to be the same reason, which was given by them at the time of filing of I.A.No.575 of 2017, which stood allowed earlier on 29.08.2017. The Court below has thus, rejected the application filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 937 days. Although the period of 937 days appears to be huge, the fact remains that almost 600 days out of 937 days is covered by the period when the entire country/world was under lockdown on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic with effect from 03.03.2020. Thus, the time during the period there was a lockdown is to be excluded for computing the delay. If the above said period is excluded, the delay will be less than 337 days. The suit that has been filed by the respondent is for a specific performance. In the suit for specific performance, the relief to be granted is a discretionary relief. Question as to when and how the agreement was signed and whether the suit was filed in time and whether there was consideration is required to be seen. When a suit is decreed ex parte, these aspects are rarely considered.

5.Be that as it may, the petitioners may have a formidable defense to resist the suit for specific performance. The respondent on the other hand may have a case for alternate relief for refund of the amount, which may have been paid by the respondent to them.

6.To balance the interest of the parties hereto, I am inclined to accept the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021 that the first petitioner was suffering from various ailments and took treatment. The petitioners, however, shall be put to terms by paying cost to the respondent.

7.To prove the bona fide, the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall also deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of O.S.No.76 of 2015. Subject to such compliance, the application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2021 shall stand allowed. In case, the petitioners fail to pay and deposit the aforesaid amounts, this order shall stand automatically vacated sine die. In case, the petitioners pay and deposit the aforesaid amounts as ordered, the Trial Court shall restore the status quo ante prior to

14.02.2019 and proceed with the trial and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months thereafter. It is made clear that the amount as directed to be deposited shall be either apportioned or refunded subject to the final decree to be passed in the suit.

8.This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes/No

30.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smn2 To The Sub Judge, Theni.

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2

30.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.10615 of 2022 1.Ilayaraja, S/o.Chinnaiah 2.Kowsalya, W/o.Ilayaraja 3.Velmurugan, S/o.Ilayaraja .. Petitioners Versus Kasammal, W/o.Late.Duraipandi .. Respondent Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.09.2022, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.76 of 2015, on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni, and allow this Civil Revision with costs throughout. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondent : Mr.T.Balakumaran