AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The submissions made by Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and by Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.
As against the dismissal of an application filed by the respondent herein as I.A.No. 172/2011 in O.S.No. 231/2004, the present civil revision petition has been filed. The suit is one instituted for recovery of money based on the suit promissory note dated 03.12.2000 allegedly executed by one Marasamy, the husband of the first petitioner/father of the petitioners 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.75,000/-. After the death of Marasamy, the suit was filed against the revision petitioners on 03.12.2003 for recovery of money allegedly borrowed by deceased Marasamy from his estate available in the hands of the revision petitioners.
The revision petitioners once allowed the suit to be decreed ex-parte and thereafter filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree. Though the said petition was filed in time, it was returned, but the revision petitioners re-presented it with a delay of 1482 days along with a petition to condone the delay in re-presentation. The said petition was dismissed, as against which, they approached this court with a revision in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 2985/2010. Showing indulgence, this court allowed the said civil revision petition on condition that the petitioners herein should deposit Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the suit. This court also issued a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months. Such an order came to be passed by this court on 12.07.2011.
Thereafter, trial commenced and the petitioners, without extending cooperation for the disposal of the suit within the time stipulated by this court in its order dated 12.07.2011 in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 2985/2010, chose to file I.A.No. 172/2011 praying that the disputed promissory note should be sent to the Forensic Laboratory along with the documents containing the admitted signatures of the deceased Marasamy for the opinion of a handwriting expert. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 16.09.2011 holding that the same was nothing but an attempt to delay the disposal of the suit.
The fact remains that the petitioners did not contest the suit and they allowed the suit to be decreed ex-parte and thereafter filed a petition in time to set aside the ex-parte decree but with defects, which was returned and re-presented with an enormous delay of 1482 days. Even after the petitioners enjoyed the indulgence of this court in permitting them to contest the suit provided they should deposit Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the suit, the petitioners have not chosen to give up their dilatory tactics and pave the way for the early disposal of the suit as directed by this court. On the other hand, they chose to file the above said application I.A.No. 172/2011 belatedly, only with a view to prolong the case as long as possible. The same was the reason for the learned trial judge to dismiss the said application. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.