The Madras High Court dismissed an application to condone a 37-day delay in filing a Civil Revision Petition. The court held there was no substantial material to support the claim that illness prevented timely filing.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; Civil Revision Petition rejected.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.P(MD)No.1099 of 2016 in C.R.P(MD) SR No.1700 of 2016
Gnanaselvam ... Petitioner / Petitioner /Respondent Vs. 1.Krishnammal ... Respondent / Respondent / Appellant
Somasundaram Chettiar (Died) And hence LR's
Prayer in C.M.P(MD)No.1099 of 2016 Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 37 days in filing Civil Revision Petition before this Court against the fair and decreetal order made in C.M.A.No.8 of 2006 dated 22.07.2015 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and thus render justice.
Prayer in C.R.P(MD) SR No.1700 of 2016 Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Civil Producer Code, to revise the fair and Decreetal order of the Learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli dated 22.07.2015 made in C.M.A.No.8 of 2006 setting aside the order of the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli dated 05.08.2005 made in E.A.No.502 of 2005 in E.P.No.193 of 2002 in O.S.No.147 of 1985 and consequently remanding the same to the said court for further enquiry as well as adduce oral evidence by the parties forthwith and conclude the proceeding within a time frame of 3 months.
For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This petition is taken out by the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the Revision petition against the fair and decreetal order made in C.M.A.No.8/2006 dated 22.07.2015 arising out of the interlocutory order passed in Execution Application. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ support of this petition, it is seen that the petitioner is not party to the suit but, he claims himself to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. Pending suit, an Execution application
2
in I.A.No.502/2005 has been filed before the said Court in Execution petition No.193/2002 and the said Execution Application was allowed on 05.08.2005. Aggrieved by that, the first respondent herein has filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2006 wherein the Appellate Court has thought it fit that the matter has to be remanded back for fresh disposal of E.A.No.502 of 2005.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
+1 CC to M/s.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM, Advocate, SR No. 19808
SM/CP
JS/SKN/3.05.2017/2P-3C
C.M.P(MD)No.1099 of 2016 and C.R.P(MD)SR No.1700 of 2016 07.04.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition should be condoned given the petitioner's age and health condition.
Whether the omission to attach medical evidence negates the claim of inability to travel for filing the petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gnanaselvam
Krishnammal
krishnan
Appadurai
G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court