CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.08.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA CRP (MD) NPD No.1779 of 2010 1. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tanjavur. 2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Thiruthuraipoondi. ... Petitioners Vs. Krishnan ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders dated 19.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.108 of 2010 in O.S.No.26 of 2007 by the District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. For Petitioners : Mr.R.S.Anandhan For Respondent : No appearance ORDER The civil revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.26/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. 1 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.26/2007 for a declaration that the proceedings of the first defendant dated 12.11.2005 terminating the agency of the respondent/plaintiff under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tanjur is not valid. 3. Though written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants, subsequently, they did not appear before the concerned court and therefore, they were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed against them on 17.06.2009. Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 251 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said petition was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, on the ground that the revision petitioners/ defendants did not explain each and every day's delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, vide his fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2010. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. The suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi pertain to the termination of the plaintiff's agency in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tanjavur. In the plaint, the respondent/ 2 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 plaintiff had alleged that he was appointed as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was effectively discharging his duties under Mr.C.Subramaniam, Development Officer. His further contention is that on 06.06.2005, he received a show cause notice from the first defendant seeking his explanation as to how he signed a "Declaration of Good Health" dated 14.12.2004 for one S.Rajendran, even though the said Rajendran died on 11.12.2004. According to the plaintiff, the said S.Rajendran died only on 18.12.2004, as per the death extract issued by the Municipality, Thiruthuraipoondi and that he has not committed any fraud upon the defendants. 5. On the contrary, the defendants in their written statement had contended that Mr.S.Rajendran had taken an insurance policy through the 2nd defendant vide insurance policy No.752958511 and that he died on 11.12.2004 at Rohini Hospital, Thanjavur. Their further contention is that the above policy was introduced by the respondent/plaintiff as an agent of the LIC during 2002 and that though the said policy got lapsed due to non payment of premium, which was due since September 2003, it was revived on 14.12.2004, based on a "Declaration of Good Health" issued on 14.12.2004, in which the respondent/plaintiff has signed as a witness. The specific contention of the defendants is that though S.Rajendran died on 11.12.2004, the respondent/plaintiff not only forged the signature of late S.Rajendran in the 3 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 "Declaration of Good Health" but also signed as a witness thereon and that the notice dated 06.06.2005 issued to the respondent/plaintiff in this regard, evoked no response from him and therefore, his agency was terminated. 6. Mr.R.S.Anandhan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that since the matter pertains to the revival of the lapsed policy on account of which the revision petitioners/defendants had incurred a heavy loss, the exparte decree passed against them in O.S.No.26/2007 is liable to be set aside. His further contention is that since the defendants are officials and there was a communication gap, they could not appear before the concerned court. His next contention is that the suit in O.S.No.26/2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff is totally misconceived and the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi has passed a cryptic order while decreeing the suit in O.S.No.26/2007. He would therefore contend that the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi should have allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 251 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. No appearance on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. 4 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 8. The learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi mainly dismissed the petition on the ground that the revision petitioners did not explain each and every day's delay and also on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed by the first revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. As far as the main suit is concerned, the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit to declare that the proceedings of the first defendant dated 12.11.2005 as not valid. The main allegation in the written statement is that the respondent/plaintiff signed as a witness in the Declaration of Good Health dated 14.12.2004, wherein it is stated that S.Rajendran died on 18.12.2004 when in fact he died on 11.12.2004. It is also to be noted that the revision petitioners are the officials and their contention is that though they appointed an advocate at Pattukottai, they could not follow up the case due to lack of communication. 10. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold level and cause of justice being defeated. More over " Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a padentic approach should be made. The doctrine must by applied in a pragmatic manner. When the defendants have contended that the respondent was instrumental in reviving a lapsed policy, the learned District Munsif should have taken this aspect into consideration, before dismissing the application 5 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. More over, the decree passed in O.S.No.26 of 2007 is also cryptic in nature and the suit seems to have been decreed only on the basis that the defendants did not appear before the court. On this score also, the orders passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.108 of 2010 in O.S.No.26 of 2007 by the District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi is set aside. 30.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mst To The District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. 6 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD) NPD 1779 of 2010 R. HEMALATHA, J., mst CRP (MD) NPD No.1779 of 2010 30.08.2019 7 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in