Dismissed

A.Mohammed Ali v. S.Srinivasan

Madras HC10 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/1849/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application to condone a 994-day delay in filing an appeal. The High Court rejected the petitioner's claim of illness due to evidence of prior false statements and set aside the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition and appeal against the order dismissing I.A.No.51 of 2011 were dismissed; the impugned order was confirmed.

A.Mohammed Ali Vs S.Srinivasan — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :10.10.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1849 of 2011 and

¶6

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶7

A.Mohammed Ali .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Srinivasan .. Respondent

¶10

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in unfiled A.S.No. - of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The order dated 17.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in unfiled A.S.No. - of 2011 by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted O.S.No.64 of 2006 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of specific performance, wherein en executable decree has been passed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner/defendant as appellant has filed the appeal in question with a petition to condone the delay of 994 days and the Court below after considering the contentions put forth on either side has dismissed I.A.No.51 of 2011. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that due to jaundice, the petitioner has not been able to file the appeal in question within time. Under the said circumstances, the delay mentioned in the petition has occurred. But the Court below without considering the reasons given in the petition has erroneously dismissed I.A.No.51 of 2011 and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Per contra the learned counsel counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2006 an Execution Petition has been filed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wherein on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed on 06.07.2009 and in the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that the revision petitioner/respondent

¶18

¶19

already filed an appeal with an application to condone the delay. But the present petition has been filed only on 09.06.2011. Under the said circumstances, the reason given in the petition is totally false and the Court below after considering the false averments made in the petition has rightly dismissed I.A.No.51 of 2011 and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Court below need not be set aside.

¶20

It is an admitted fact that in O.S.No.64 of 2006 an executable decree has been passed and the present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, so as to condone the delay on 994 days stating that the petitioner has suffered from jaundice. Even though it is stated in the petition that the petitioner has suffered from jaundice, the petitioner has not chosen to give any evidence and further in E.P.No.109 of 2008, the revision petitioner/respondent has filed a counter affidavit on 06.07.2009 stating that he already filed an appeal with an application to condone the delay. But the present petition has been filed only on 09.06.2011. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner is in the habit of giving false statement before the Court.

¶21

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in the habit of giving false statement before the Court, the reason given in the petition cannot be accepted. The Court below after considering the evil design of the petitioner and also falsity of the statement made by him in the counter affidavit in E.P.No.109 of 2008, has rightly dismissed the petition.

¶22

In view of the foregoing narration of the factual aspects, this Court has not found any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order dated 17.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in unfiled A.S.No. - of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.

¶30

+1 CC to Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, Advocate (SR.No.35122)

¶31

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1849 of 2011 10.10.2011

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

pm NSV/31.10.11/2P/3C

A.Mohammed Ali v. S.Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mohammed Ali v. S.Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seenivasan @ Karuppiah Vs Kalyanasundaram Chettiar

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs P. Rajaram

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Kalimuthu

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Settukumar

Sabruhan Beevi Vs Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Alagar, S/O.Mari, Vs Chellachamy, S/O.Ponnuthevar