Dismissed

Jaya Christhu Rani, v. Govindaraj

Madras HC7 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/720/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a defendant against an order rejecting her application to set aside an ex parte decree due to excessive delay. The court held that no sufficient cause was shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 1235 days delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to set aside the impugned order dismissing the I.A. is dismissed and the I.A. remains rejected.

Jaya Christhu Rani, Vs Govindaraj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014

¶7

Jaya Christhu Rani ... Petitioner

¶8

Govindaraj ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 06.11.2013 and made in I.A.No.591 of 2012 in O.S.No.80 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manapparai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Rajasekaran

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This memorandum of civil revision petition has been directed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 06.11.2013 and made in I.A.No.591 of 2012 in O.S.No.80 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manapparai.

¶14

The revision petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.80 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manapparai, whereas the respondent herein is the plaintiff therein.

¶15

It is manifested from the records that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.80 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manapparai, as against the revision petitioner/defendant, seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 24.06.2004. It appears that the said suit was decreed ex parte on 08.10.2008 and based upon the ex parte decree dated 08.10.2008, the respondent/plaintiff had initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.12 of 2012. In the said execution petition, notice was ordered to be sent to the revision petitioner/defendant and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ according to her that notice was served on her on 29.02.2012 and only thereafter she came to know that the suit was decreed ex

¶16

¶17

parte as against her on 08.10.2008. But, in order to file an application, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there was a delay of 1235 days. Therefore, she had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.591 of 2012 to condone the delay of 1235 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and that application was suitably resisted by the respondent/plaintiff and after hearing both sides the said interlocutory application in I.A.No.591 of 2012 was dismissed, on 06.11.2013, on the ground that the revision petitioner/defendant had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay of 1235 days.

¶18

Impugning the said order of dismissal dated 06.11.2013, the revision petitioner being the defendant has come forward with this memorandum of civil revision petition.

¶19

Heard Mr.A.V.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant as well as Mrs.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the materials available in the typed set of papers.

¶20

The revision petitioner/defendant has stated in her affidavit, filed in support of the interlocutory application, that she was suffering from severe illness in the month of July, 2008 and therefore she had been taking treatment for her ailment and since it did not give proper relief, she had been to Kerala to undergo treatment and thereafter in the year 2010 her husband was suffered from heart ailment and he was also taking treatment in several Hospitals and on account of this reason she was not able to contact her counsel and that her counsel, who was appearing on her behalf before the Trial Court, had failed to inform her about the progress of the suit and that she came to know about the ex parte decree only on 29.02.2012 on which date she was served with notice in E.P.No.12 of 2012.

¶21

Admittedly, no documentary proof has been filed by the revision petitioner/defendant to support her claim. As contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the abnormal delay of 1235 days. It is revealed from the records that the ex parte decree was passed on 08.10.2008 and the application seems to have been filed after more than three years for which no acceptable explanation has been given by the revision petitioner/defendant.

¶22

Keeping in view of the above facts, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge does not require the interference of this Court.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

In the result, this memorandum of civil revision petition is dismissed and the fair and decreetal orders dated 06.11.2013 and made in I.A.No.591 of 2012 in O.S.No.80 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manapparai, are confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

To:

¶30

The District Munsif, District Munsif Court, Manapparai.

¶31

+1cc to M/S.UDHAYA LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate, in SR. No.21221.

¶32

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.720 of 2014 07.04.2014

¶33

krk msm 21.04.2014 p3/3c

¶34

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

Jaya Christhu Rani, v. Govindaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Christhu Rani, v. Govindaraj

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

K. Ravichandran, Vs a. Panjali.

P.Robinson, S/O.Ponnumuthu Vs P.Vijaya Nesan

K.Sornam Vs N.Jeyaraman

S. Mathiselvan, Vs C.N.Elango

R. Anbuselvi Vs R. Venkatraman

R. Anbuselvi Vs R. Venkatraman