High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition refusing to entertain interference where underlying application to condone delay is at unnumbered stage and disputed.
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
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: 24.11.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP (NPD). No. 3910 of 2017
and CMP.No.18257 of 2017
G.V. Durgan @ G.V.Durganathan .. Petitioner
Vs
K.M.Velumani .. Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 27.07.2017 passed in R.E.A No. 11/2017 in E.P.No. 14/2013 in O.S.No.32 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District Court, Vellore, Tirupattur.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.J.Antony Jesus
ORDER
According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an
application before the trial court on 01.03.2016 to condone the
http://www.judis.nic.in delay in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order passed
2
in OS.No.32 of 2013, which was assigned the number as 903 of 2016. The said papers were returned for rectification of defects. Thereafter, it was repeatedly re-presented and finally it was re-presented on 28.02.2017. From that date, the said application is pending and no notice has been ordered in the said application. While so, the court below has passed an Order in EP.No.14 of 2013
for delivery of possession and for police protection. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition
before this Court.
would submit that notice has been ordered to the respondent in the application filed to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 22.12.2012 and the same was dismissed for default on 27.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed an application to restore the petition along with a petition
to condone the delay, which is now at unnumbered stage. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is factually incorrect. Therefore, this Court has to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
concerned and perused the materials available on record.
3
the petitioner has filed an application to condone the delay and the
said application was dismissed for default. Subsequently, an application has been filed to restore the same along with a condone delay petition. The said petition is at unnumbered stage and the same is disputed by the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Civil Revision Petition. At this stage, on the request of the petitioner, the interim order granted by this Court is in force for further one week period from the date of receipt of a copy of
this Order, so as to enable the petitioner to file an appropriate
application before the court below.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
24.11.2017
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
lok
Note: Issue order copy on 30.11.2017
4
D.KRISHNAKUMAR.J,
lok
To
The III Additional District Court, Vellore, Tirupattur.
CRP (NPD). No. 3910 of 2017
and CMP.No.18257 of 2017
24.11.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in Revision Petition when the underlying petition is at unnumbered stage and disputed regarding condonation of delay
G.V. Durgan @ G.V.Durganathan
K.M.Velumani
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
