The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. The appellant sought to condone a delay of over seven years in setting aside an ex-parte decree. The Court found the reason for delay insufficient and upheld the trial court's dismissal.
The Civil Revision Petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed. No costs were awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.12.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4701 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Walajabad Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited,
rep by its Secretary D.Kannadasan having Office at Walajabad Town, Walajabad Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.N.Venugopal
2.Udhayakumari
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order and decreetal order dated 19.03.2015 made in I.A.No.540 of 2014 in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2000 on the file of the District Court II, Kanchipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Jyothish Chander
O R D E R
Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.540 of 2014 in
M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2000 on the file of the District Court II, Kanchipuram, the
3rd respondent has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2
2.The respondents filed M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2000 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of their son in a road accident that occurred on 09.02.2000.
3.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,000/on 22.03.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who had financed for the purchase of the vehicle, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree passed against them. According to the petitioner, the petition filed by the revision petitioner was returned for compliance by the Registry of the District Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.540 of 2014 to condone the delay of 2063 days in re-presenting the petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the bundle got mixed up with the disposed of bundles, therefore, the papers could not be traced and the papers were traced only two days prior to the filing of the petition in I.A.No.540 of 2014. The claimants filed their counter disputing the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
4.In order to condone the inordinate delay of 2063 days, the petitioner has, in a causal manner, stated that the bundle got mixed up with the disposed of bundles and therefore, the delay of nearly seven years should be
3
condoned. The reasoning given by the petitioner cannot be accepted, since the delay is very much on the higher side. In the absence of sufficient cause shown by the petitioner, the delay cannot be condoned. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.
5.In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No Internet : Yes va
16.12.2015
To
The District Court II, Kanchipuram.
4
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
va
C.R.P.(NPD).No.4701 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
16.12.2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of 2063 days presented by the petitioner constitutes sufficient cause to condone the delay under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to condone delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Walajabad Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited
N.Venugopal
Udhayakumari
M.Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
