Indira Gandhi vs Hafifulla

Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 19 of 2010 in O.S. No. 648 of 2006 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul, dated 21.09.2010. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the

disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, would run thus:

(i) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 648 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, seeking permanent injunction.

The revision petitioner/defendant remained exparte even without filing the written statement, whereupon an exparte decree was passed.

Subsequently, E.P. No. 243 of 2008 was filed by averring that the judgment debtor was trying to violate the order of injunction, whereupon the

revision petitioner/defendant was arrested and produced before the Court and at that time, the lower Court passed the order dated 04.01.2008,

which reads as under:

4.1.08

Respondent/Judgment Debtor produced at 3.15 p.m. Respondent pleads pardon and mercy. She being a lady and she pleading pardon. She is

released on executing a Muchalika not to disturb the possession of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor in future.

(extracted as such)

(ii) Subsequently, during December'' 2009, an application in I.A. No. 19 of 2010 was filed to get the delay of 970 days condoned in filing the

application to get set aside the exparte decree. It was contested and during the enquiry, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were

examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. On the side of the respondent, D.W. 1 was examined and no documentary evidence was let in.

Ultimately, the said application was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would narrate and portray the facts to the effect that his client was incapable of seeing

the wood for trees and she was not in the know of things also and taking undue advantage of her ignorance, the respondent/plaintiff portrayed and

projected her as though she was an utter stranger and got the exparte decree. For the purpose of securing her release, she was constrained to

make endorsement before the Executing Court which cannot be pitted against her. The ration card and the Bank passbook marked on the side of

the revision petitioner/defendant would exemplify and display that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and temporarily,

she had gone to Kerala in connection with her job and that can not be labelled or dubbed as though she has nothing to do with the suit property.

The lower Court without appreciating the pros and cons of the matter, simply dismissed the said application, warranting interference by this Court.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, inviting the attention of this Court to the Muchalika executed by the judgment

debtor/defendant in the E.P., would advance his arguments that supinely and candidly, the judgment debtor undertook before the Court as early as

on 04.01.2008 that she would not interfere with the suit property, whereupon she secured her release after having done so; totally antithetical to it,

she files such application in I.A. No. 19 of 2010 to get the delay condoned in filing the application to get the exparte decree set aside; the lower

Court correctly analysed the facts and dismissed the said application and there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court.

The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in not condoning the delay of 970 days in filing the application to get

set aside the exparte decree for the reasons found set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition filed by the revision petitioner/defendant in I.A.

No. 19 of 2010?

The Point:

Trite, the proposition of law is that the witnesses might lie, but the circumstances would not lie. There was enormous delay of 970 days in filing

the application to get the exparte decree set aside. The glaring and pellucid facts are that even as early as on 04.01.2008 itself, she executed the

Muchalika before the Executing Court undertaking that she would not interfere with the suit property, but however, having a volte face taking an

about turn and also quite antithetical to what she committed herself in black and white, she filed I.A. No. 19 of 2010 for getting the huge delay of

970 days condoned in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. Her explanation that her husband died and that she was in state of

confusion and chaos, can not be taken as valid reason much less sufficient reason to get such huge delay condoned.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would try to pathetically project the case of the petitioner that she being a lady and that

too, having lost her husband, was not in a position to set the law in motion appropriately and appositely and that too swiftly; her misfortune cannot

be used as against her interest; if opportunity is given, she would be able to establish before the Court that at no point of time, she vacated the

premises and that she was not a stranger to the said property.

I recollect the following legal maxims:

(i) ""Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt."" [The laws aid the vigilant, not those who sleep.]

(ii) ""Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium."" [It is in the interest of the State that there be a limit to litigation.]

Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal maxims, if the matter is viewed, it is obvious and axiomatic that this is a singularly singular case, in which the

revision petitioner/defendant throwing to winds her commitment in the form of Muchalika before the Executing Court, ventured to veer round and

take a quite antithetical stand. Such attitude on the part of the revision petitioner/defendant cannot be entertained. The lower Court correctly

adverted to those facts and refused to condone the delay of 970 days, warranting no interference by this Court. I could see no perversity or

illegality in the order of the lower Court. The point is answered accordingly. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.