1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2040 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 D.Duraichamy .. Revision Petitioner/Defendant Vs. P.Selvaraj .. Respondent/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 07.07.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.749 of 2010 in Original Suit No.174 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Palani. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondent : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 07.07.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.749 of 2010 in Original Suit No.174 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Palani. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.174 of 2008 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a money decree, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.174 of 2008, an ex-parte decree has been passed on 12.08.2009 and in filing a petition for setting aside the same, there is a delay of 364 days and in order to condone the same the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.749 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court below after considering all the contentions putforth on either side has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ defendant as revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has strenuously contended that the present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to condone the delay of 364 days and on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner, it has been clearly stated that he suffered from back pain and due to that he got treatment and in order the prove the same Ex.P.1 has been marked, but the Court below without considering the nature of the averments made in the petition and also the document filed on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously dismissed the present petition and therefore the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that mere production of Ex.P.1 is not at all sufficient for the purpose of proving the reason given in the petition and further in Ex.P.1, it has been clearly stated that from 01.06.2009 to 28.02.2010, the petitioner has got treatment, but the present petition has been filed on 11.08.2010 and the petitioner has not given any acceptable explanation with regard to six months and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is not liable to be interfered with. 5. The entire case of the revision petitioner/petitioner is based upon Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 is nothing, but a medical certificate, wherein it has been simply stated that the revision petitioner/petitioner has got treatment from 01.06.2009 to 28.02.2010. The present petition has been filed on 11.08.2010. As rightly pointed out on the side of the respondent, no acceptable explanation has been given on the side of the revision petitioner as to why the present petition has been filed after lapse of six months from 28.02.2010 and further as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that mere production of Ex.P.1 would not be sufficient so as to accept the reason given in the petition without examining the author of the same. Therefore viewing from any angle, the revision petitioner has not proved the reason given in the petition. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contentions urged on the side of the revision petitioner and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.749 of 2010 in Original Suit No.174 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Palani is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge,Palani. +1cc to M/S.Sarvabhauman Associates, SR.No.40744 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2040 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 22.11.2011 smn/sma/2.12.2011/3c/2p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/