- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K.M Balasubramaniam ... v. C. Loganathan 2. N.G...
Structured Summary of the Judicial Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenges the order dated 29.10.2009 made in I.A. No. 129 of 2009 in O.S. No. 656 of 2002 (First Additional Sub-Court, Erode).
The underlying suit (O.S. No. 656 of 2002) sought a money decree of Rs. 1,23,200/- (with interest and costs) based on a promissory note dated 01.08.1999. An ex parte decree was entered on 08.09.2004 when the defendant (the Revision Petitioner) and/or his counsel failed to appear for cross-examination of P.W.1.
Execution proceedings followed: E.P. No. 87 of 2005 (execution on the decree) in which the judgment-debtor initially appeared through counsel but later was set ex parte; E.A. No. 442 of 2005 (application by the judgment-debtor in the execution) which resulted in arrest being ordered after enquiry; the execution proceedings were later closed when the judgment-debtor evaded arrest. A subsequent execution petition (E.P. No. 297 / referred as E.P. No. 292 of 2006 in parts of the record) proceeded to bring the judgment-debtor's property to sale by court auction; the property was sold on 27.09.2007, sale confirmed on 10.12.2007, and sale certificate issued. The auction purchaser sought delivery of possession by E.A. No. 277 of 2008.
At a late stage (after full satisfaction of decree was recorded and sale proceeds withdrawn by the decree-holder), the Revision Petitioner filed an unnumbered application (I.A. No. 129 of 2009 / described as I.A. No. 129 of 2010 in one place in the record) seeking condonation of a delay of 1,581 days (four years and four months) in representing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. The present Civil Revision challenges the lower court's dismissal of that application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the inordinate delay of 1,581 days in representing an application to set aside the ex parte decree (under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC) is satisfactorily explained so as to justify condonation.
- Whether the Revision Petitioner acted with bona fides or deliberately adopted delay tactics and thereby abused process of court.
- Whether, in the facts of the case, allowing the belated representation would cause prejudice to the decree-holder or auction purchaser, making condonation inappropriate despite the general judicial preference to decide matters on merits.
Arguments of the Parties
Revision Petitioner (Defendant) — Arguments
- The delay in representing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree should not attract a notice requirement to respondents.
- A petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC was originally filed in time but returned for defects; due to those defects it could not be represented promptly, resulting in a delay of 1,581 days.
- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010 (6) SCC 786) — submitting that, unless mala fides are apparent, delay should generally be condoned and matters determined on merits.
- Reliance was also placed on higher court decisions dealing with discretion and condonation principles (as set out in the petitioner's submissions in the record).
First Respondent (Decree-holder / Plaintiff) — Arguments
- The petitioner filed the condonation application after four years and four months only to protract proceedings; the application lacked a supporting affidavit and contained only an attested statement.
- The petitioner's averments were false: the petitioner had appeared in execution proceedings earlier, sought time to file counters, but failed to do so and was repeatedly set ex parte.
- The petitioner evaded arrest pursuant to an order in E.A. No. 442 of 2005, causing the execution petition to be closed and obstructing the decree-holder's remedies.
- The petitioner failed to challenge earlier execution orders and has no bona fide reason to seek condonation at a late stage.
Second Respondent (Auction Purchaser) — Arguments
- The revision by the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law and court.
- The auction purchaser's title and rights would be prejudiced if the delay were condoned; the auction purchaser paid the full purchase price, sale was confirmed and sale certificate issued, and the decree-holder withdrew the sale proceeds and recorded full satisfaction.
- Reliance was placed on a series of precedents (listed to the court) to show that such belated attempts to upset final orders and sales are impermissible and constitute abuse.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh, 2010 (6) SCC 786 | General principle: unless mala fides are apparent, delay should ordinarily be condoned and matters decided on merits rather than dismissed on technicalities. | The decision was relied upon by the petitioner. The court acknowledged the principle but found on the facts that mala fides/deliberate delay tactics were present and therefore condonation was not appropriate. |
| P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, 2009 (9) SCC 173 (2009 (4) CTC 187 (SC)) | Scope of Section 149, CPC; discretionary power relates to the maxim 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' (law does not require the impossible); caution in granting relief beyond feasible measures. | Cited for the proposition that discretionary relief is not boundless and courts must refuse impracticable prayers; the court referred to these limits while assessing the petitioner's remedies and conduct. |
| Sardhar Sahib v. Syath Jafer Sahib, 2009 (1) MLJ 1216 | Example of condonation of inordinate delay where personal circumstances (work abroad, theft forcing relocation) reasonably explained non-representation. | Cited as an instance where delay was condoned on factual grounds; the court contrasted those facts with the present case where sufficient explanation was lacking. |
| S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs., 1994 (1) SCC 1 | Authority relied upon by respondents to show limits on belated challenges and abuse of process. | The respondents relied on this and similar authorities; the court treated these as supporting the proposition that deliberate delay and abuse of process can justify refusal to condone delay. |
| Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam, 2009 (5) CTC 48 | Held that petitioner was not diligent; delay of 332 days was not condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. | Quoted to support the view that lack of promptness and failure to approach court immediately justify refusing condonation; court applied similar reasoning to the present, longer delay. |
| Jayaraman, G. v. Devarajan, 2007 (2) CTC 643 | Delay cannot be excused merely by judicial generosity; the claimant must show reasonable diligence and condonation should not prejudice other parties; liberal approach must not cause prejudice under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. | Cited and applied to emphasize that condonation must not prejudice the decree-holder or auction purchaser; the court relied on this principle in denying condonation. |
| Kandaswamy v. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, 2001 (4) CTC 722 | Held that a delay of 797 days was not satisfactorily explained where the party had actual knowledge of the decree and did not act promptly. | Used to support the proposition that long unexplained delay, despite knowledge of the decree, militates against condonation; court found analogous facts in the present case. |
| Sundar Gnanaolivu v. Rajendran Gnanavolivy (2003 (1) LW 585) and Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, 1990 (10) LLN 457 (cited within) | Principles relating to limitation: the length of delay is relevant; long delays likely prejudice the opposite party; one cannot fix their own period of limitation. | The court relied on these authorities to stress that each case turns on its facts, length of delay is significant, and long unexplained delay weighs against condonation in the interests of fairness and public policy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by examining the chronological facts and the conduct of the petitioner in the suit and the successive execution proceedings:
- The suit (based on a promissory note dated 01.08.1999) resulted in an ex parte decree passed on 08.09.2004 after the petitioner (or his counsel) failed to attend for cross-examination of P.W.1 on the adjourned date.
- Pursuant to that decree, execution proceedings (E.P. No. 87 of 2005) were initiated. The petitioner appeared through counsel but did not file the counter and was set ex parte; he later filed E.A. No. 442 of 2005 in that execution, which after enquiry led to an order of arrest; the petitioner allegedly evaded arrest and the E.P. was closed.
- A subsequent execution petition to sell the petitioner's property proceeded (E.P. No. 297 / 292 of 2006), notice was effected (including substituted service and publication where necessary), the petitioner was set ex parte, the property was auctioned, sale confirmed and sale certificate issued; the auction purchaser paid the full amount and the decree-holder withdrew the sale proceeds, leading to recording of full satisfaction of the decree.
- At that late stage (after confirmation of sale and satisfaction), the petitioner sought condonation of a delay of 1,581 days in representing an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC and also filed an application under Section 47, CPC to set aside the court auction sale.
- The court reviewed authorities relied upon by both sides: while there is a general judicial inclination to decide disputes on merits and to condone delays unless mala fides are manifest (as in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana), the court observed that discretion to condone delay is not unfettered and must account for prejudice to other parties and the conduct of the petitioner (citing P.K. Palanisamy and other authorities).
- Applying the principles to the facts, the court found the petitioner had repeatedly appeared and thereafter defaulted at critical stages, evaded arrest, failed to challenge earlier orders in a timely manner, and only belatedly filed an unnumbered application with inadequate supporting affidavit. The court concluded the delay was deliberate and amounted to an abuse of process, causing prejudice to the auction purchaser and the decree-holder.
- Given the totality of facts — the inordinate unexplained delay, the petitioner's prior appearances and conduct in execution proceedings, the completion of sale and recording of satisfaction, and the likelihood of prejudice to innocent third parties — the court declined to apply the lenient rule of condonation and dismissed the revision petition as an abuse of process.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court's final disposition is DISMISSAL of the Civil Revision Petition.
Specifically, the court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition with costs and also dismissed the connected miscellaneous petition. The court found that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 1,581 days in representing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, that the delay was deliberately caused and constituted an abuse of process, and that condonation would cause injustice to the decree-holder and the auction purchaser.
Implications: The direct consequence is that the petitioner's challenge to the lower court's refusal to condone the delay and to set aside the ex parte decree is rejected; the auction purchaser's purchase (sale confirmation and issuance of sale certificate) and the decree-holder's recorded satisfaction remain undisturbed. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying established principles concerning condonation of delay, abuse of process, and prejudice to third parties.
Note: This summary is derived solely from the text of the provided opinion and does not include information beyond what is stated therein.
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A No. 129 of 2009 in O.S No. 656 of 2002, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Erode.
JUDGMENT
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A No. 129 of 2009 in O.S No. 656 of 2002, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Erode.
2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Defendant in O.S No. 656 of 2002, seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,23,200/- to be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant with interest and cost and the Suit was decreed ex parte. The Revision Petitioner herein as Defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A No. 129 of 2010 seeking an order to condone the delay of 1581 days in representing the Application to set aside the ex parte decree.
3. In the Counter Affidavit, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the Petitioner had filed the above Application after four years and four months to condone the delay in representing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree, only with a view to protract the proceeding and that there was no Affidavit filed in support of the Petition filed by him. Instead of filing Affidavit, only an attested statement was filed. Further, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the averments of the Petitioner made in the Petition are false. It is seen that the Petitioner has stated that he had misplaced his bundle, hence the Suit was decreed on 08.09.2004 Pursuant to the decree, Execution Petition in E.P No. 87 of 2005 was filed, wherein the Petitioner herein appeared through his Counsel for the hearing on 11.07.2005 and took time for filing his Counter. The E.P was posted on several hearings, however, the Petitioner did not file his Counter in the said Execution Petition and the Petitioner was set ex parte on 29.11.2005
4. Then the Petitioner filed an Execution Application in E.A No. 442 of 2005 to set aside the said ex parte order passed in E.P No. 87 of 2005 along with his Counter. Even in the Counter Statement, the Petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor had not referred anything about the Petition filed by him to set aside the ex parte decree. The said E.A No. 442 of 2005 was allowed only on payment of cost and only after enquiry, the Court below ordered arrest of the judgment-debtor in E.P No. 87 of 2005. The First Respondent herein specifically stated in the Counter filed before the Court below that the Petitioner had evaded arrest and that he could not be arrested. Hence, the First Respondent did not press the E.P No. 87 of 2005 before the Court below and the same was dismissed.
5. Subsequently, the First Respondent filed the Execution Petition in E.P No. 297 of 2006, in order to bring the Petitioner's property for sale to realise the amount payable under the decree. However, the Petitioner evaded service of notice, hence, substituted service was ordered and paper publication was effected. In spite of the said fact the Petitioner failed to appear, hence, he was set ex parte on 15.02.2007 in the Execution Proceeding. Pursuant to the order of adjudication, the Petitioner's property was brought for court auction sale on 27.09.2007 and after the sale, the same was confirmed on 10.12.2007 and Sale Certificate was also issued by the Court below. Subsequently, the auction purchaser filed E.A No. 277 of 2008 for delivery of possession of the property. In the said E.A No. 277 of 2008, the Petitioner was served with a notice for the hearing dated 23.10.2008 and on the said date of hearing, the Petitioner appeared through his Counsel and took time for filing Counter and caused delay.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent/Plaintiff further submitted that deliberately delay was caused by the Petitioner and he parted with all his valuable assets through his Power of Attorney Agent one M. Elangovan, in order to defeat the claim of the decree-holder. The Execution Petition almost reached its final stage, however, the Petitioner came forward with a spurious Petition to condone the delay of 1581 days i.e 4 years and 4 months to set aside the ex parte decree, hence, the same is lack of bona fides and liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in case of delay in representing a Petition, notice need not be sent to the Respondents. According to him, Petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C was filed in time, however, due to some defects, the Petition was ordered to be returned for compliance, which could not be represented in time and hence, there was a delay of 1581 days. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh, 2010 (6) SCC 786, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“19. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of the Appellant's objections filed under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless mala fides are Writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it out on such technicalities.”
8. In P.K Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, 2009 (4) CTC 187 (SC) : 2009 (9) SCC 173, while deciding the scope of Section 149, C.P.C, 1908, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the discretionary power relates to the Maxim ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’, the Law does not permit anyone to do impossible things and the Court has to reject such a prayer. Wherein, the Appellant while presenting the Plaint inter alia contended that sufficient Court fee stamps were not available in the Sub-Treasury. The Presiding Officer of the local Civil Court in a given situation would be aware of the fact thereof. Therefore, considering the circumstance, the prayer made in that behalf was granted liberally. In the aforesaid context, the Apex Court has further held in the decision as follows:
“22. We have, however, serious reservations as to whether the Civil Court could hear a Defendant before registering a Plaint. The Code does not envisage such a situation. When a Suit is filed, the Civil Court is bound by the procedures laid down in the Code. The Defendant upon appearing, however, in certain situations, may question the orders passed by the Civil Court at a later stage.”
9. In Sardhar Sahib v. Syath Jafer Sahib, 2009 (1) MLJ 1216, this Court has condoned the inordinate delay in representing a Petition, on the ground that the First Petitioner therein was working in abroad and the Second Petitioner, a lady, was residing alone and there was a theft in her house, forcing her to go to her mother's place in the absence of her husband. Hence, the letters sent by their Counsel had not reached her. Moreover, the only return, endorsed on the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree, was that the Counsel did not serve a copy of the Petition on the Counsel for the other side and therefore, it was construed by the Court that there was a mistake on the part of the Counsel and accordingly, the delay was condoned.
10. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is no way relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the appearance of the Petitioner through Counsel before the Court below in the earlier E.P No. 87 of 2005 and the orders passed in the subsequent E.P No. 297 of 2006 having not been challenged by the Petitioner would show that there is no bona fide reason in favour of the Revision Petitioner.
11. Mr. AR.L Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent/auction purchaser contended that the Revision preferred by the Petitioner/judgment-debtor is a clear abuse of process of law and Court. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:
1. S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs., 1994 (1) SCC 1;
2. Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam, 2009 (5) CTC 48;
3. Jayaraman, G v. Devarajan, 2007 (2) CTC 643;
4. Kandaswamy v. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, 2001 (4) CTC 722.
12. In Sundar Gnanaolivu, rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent v. Rajendran Gnanavolivy, rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, 2003 (1) LW 585, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“…14-A. In yet another Division Bench Judgment reported in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tuticorin v. Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Madurai and another, 1990 (10) LLN 457, the principles relating to rule of limitation have been discussed and the legal position has been stated by His Lordship Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan as he then was, in paragraphs 14 and 17 which reads as under:
“14….If a litigant chooses to approach the Court long after the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, he cannot say that no prejudice would be caused to the other side by the delay being condoned. The other side would have in all probability destroyed the records thinking that the records would not be relevant as there was no further proceeding in the matter. Hence, to view a matter of condonation of delay with a presupposition that no prejudice will be caused by the condonation of delay to the Respondent in that Application will be fallacious. In our view, each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Length of the delay is a relevant matter to be taken into account while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. It is not open to any litigant to fix his own period of limitation for instituting proceedings for which law has prescribed periods of limitation.
17….Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have he matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long time, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay, and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserved to be preferred as against technical considerations. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. Is a litigant liable to have a Damocles' sword hanging over his head indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?…”
13. In Jayaraman, G. v. Devarajan, 2007 (2) CTC 643, this Court (R. Banumathi, J.), Has held that the delay cannot be excused as a matter of judicious generosity, since rendering substantial justice is the vital aspect and the liberal approach should not cause prejudice to the opposite party. The party claiming indulgence must establish that he has been reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter. It is a settled proposition of law that liberal exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of Limitation Act should not cause prejudice to the Plaintiff/decree-holder or the auction purchaser and deliberately causing delay cannot be considered liberally, so as to affect the rights of the other parties.
14. In Shanmugam v. Chokkalingam, 2009 (5) CTC 48, this Court (V. Periya Karuppiah, J.), has held that the Petitioner/Defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the case, as he had failed to approach the Court immediately after service of notice, accordingly, confirmed the order of dismissal of a Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 332 days in filing a Petition to set aside the ex parte decree.
15. In Kandaswamy v. Krishnamandiram Trust, Karur, 2001 (4) CTC 722, this Court (K. Sampath, J.), relying on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court has held that the Revision Petitioner therein had already been served with the notice and knew about the ex parte decree, however, failed to file Petition to set aside the ex parte order immediately. Hence, the Court took a view that the delay of 797 days was not satisfactorily explained.
16. In the instant case, the Suit in O.S No. 656 of 2002 on the file of the file of the Sub-Court, Erode was filed, seeking a money decree against the Petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 1,23,200/- to be paid with interest and costs. It is not in dispute that as per the material papers available on record, P.W.1 was examined in chief on 04.09.2004 and the Petitioner/Defendant had sought time to cross-examine P.W.1, hence, it was adjourned to 08.09.2004 Subsequent, neither the Petitioner herein nor his Counsel appeared, hence, he was called absent and set ex parte and ex parte deree was also passed. Pursuant to the ex parte decree, Respondent/decree-holder filed Execution Petition in E.P No. 87 of 2005. The Petitioner/judgment-debtor appeared through Counsel and took time for filing Counter, however, Counter was not filed and the Petitioner herein was also called absent and set ex parte in the E.P Subsequently, Execution Application in E.A No. 442 of 2005 was filed by the Petitioner in the aforesaid E.P to set aside the ex parte order along with his counter. After enquiry, the E.P was allowed and arrest was ordered against the Petitioner/judgment-debtor.
17. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, the Petitioner/judgment-debtor had been evading arrest, hence, warrant of arrest could not be executed and hence, the Execution Petition was subsequently closed. Then the present E.P No. 292 of 2006 was filed by the Respondent/decree-holder to bring the property belongs to the Petitioner for sale, wherein notice was served on the Petitioner/judgment-debtor, however, he remained absent and was set ex parte. The property was sold in Court auction and a third party purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 4,00,500/- in the auction. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, the entire amount was deposited by the auction purchaser before the Court below. On 10.12.2007 sale was confirmed and Sale Certificate was also issued to the auction purchaser. The Respondent/decree-holder filed a Petition for payment out of the decree amount and that was ordered by the Court below, accordingly, after the order, full satisfaction of the decree was recorded and the E.P was closed. The auction purchaser filed a Petition for delivery of possession, at this stage, the Petitioner/judgment-debtor filed a Petition to condone the delay of 1581 days in representing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree. It is also brought to the notice that the Petitioner/judgment-debtor has also filed a Petition under Section 47, C.P.C to set aside the Court auction sale, without any legal defence.
18. It is not in dispute that the Suit was filed based on a pro-note, dated 01.08.1999 and the ex parte decree was passed on 08.09.2004, nearly 7 years back. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner appeared in the Suit as well as in the earlier E.P No. 87 of 2005 through Counsel, however, the alleged Petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree was not represented for more than four years and four months. Though arrest was ordered in the earlier E.P, however, as the Petitioner evaded service, that E.P was closed, then the present Execution Petition in E.P No. 292 of 2006 was filed against the property belongs to the Petitioner. Notice was served properly on the Petitioner/judgment-debtor and after proclamation of sale, property was sold in public auction. The successful bidder, a third party to the Suit paid the entire amount. As the sale was confirmed and Sale Certificate was also issued, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser was withdrawn by the decree-holder by filing a Petition before the Court below and full satisfaction was also recorded. At this stage, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek an order to condone the inordinate delay of 1581 days in representing an unnumbered Application, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte decree. It cannot be disputed that the length of delay is not a matter for deciding the Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and rendering substantial justice is the paramount consideration.
19. In the instant case, it is clear that the Petitioner/judgment-debtor has deliberately adopted delay tactics at various stages. Having appeared through Counsel in the earlier Execution Petition in E.P No. 87 of 2005, evaded arrest and has not challenged various earlier orders passed in the Execution Petitions has casually filed the Application before the Court below to condone the delay in representing an Application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C and also filed a Petition under Section 47, C.P.C, which would show that it is an abuse of process of law, as argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. On the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no merit in favour of the Petitioner to allow the inordinate delay of 1581 days in representing an unnumbered Application, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte decree. As found by the Court below, the inordinate delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the Petitioner herein. While deciding the Petition, this Court has to consider the substantial justice. I am of the view that allowing the Petition would render only injustice to the Second Respondent/auction purchaser, who was impleaded by the order of this Court in this Revision and the First Respondent/decree-holder, hence, to meet the ends of justice, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, as an abuse of process of Court by the Petitioner herein.
20. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Alert