AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.—The C.R.P. is against the order allowing the petition for condoning the delay of 394 days in filing the petition to set
aside the ex parte decree. The reason stated in the affidavit in support of the petition is that there was a communal clash in the village with reference
to the performing of the functions in the temple. Two communities clashed with each other and as a result law and order problem became serious
and many families left the village. The petitioner states that he left the village and resided in another village Huppur along with his relative one
Karuppaiah. He returned only after the normalcy was restored. As he was away from the village the postcard sent by the Advocate was not
received. In the counter excepting the general denial, there is no specific denial with reference to the allegations contained in the affidavit. Only in
the aforesaid circumstances the lower court allowed the petition for condoning the delay, After having agreed about the contention of the petitioner
the lower court has directed to deposit Rs. 7,500 into court. The ex parte decree is for Rs. 15,000. I do not find any justification for ordering the
deposit of half of the amount.
Only in a case where there is a doubt about the reasons given by the petitioner for condoning the delay or the reasons appeared to be
unacceptable or unnatural, conditions should be imposed. But in a case where the reasons appeared to be genuine and they have been accepted
there is no justification for imposing a condition to deposit 50% of the claim amount, which in my view is not only unjustified, but also prevents the
petitioner to have a fair trial of the case. Therefore the C.R.P. is allowed. The order of the lower court is set aside with reference to the direction to
pay a sum of Rs. 7,500. In other respects the order will stand. The suit is of the year 1993. Therefore the III Additional District Munsif,
Tiruchirapalli on whose file the suit is pending is directed to take up the same and dispose of it within a period of 6 months from today. In view of
the disposal of the C.R.P. no order is necessary in C.M.Ps. 17794 and 16562 of 1996.
The petitioner''s counsel has agreed to co-operate with the District Munsif for the early disposal.
No costs.