The Single Judge dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed to challenge an order condoning a 251-day delay by the respondent in setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court held election duties were a valid reason for the delay and found no error warranting interference.
No costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
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: 23.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1579 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.P.M.Maragatham
2.P.Saravanan
3.P.Lathamaheswari
4.P.Kanchana
5.P.Banumathi
6.P.Sivakumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Salem City Municipal Corporation
Salem – 636 001. .. Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and decretal order dated 17.02.2014 made in I.A.No.663 of 2013 in O.S.No.938 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari
2
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 17.02.2014 made in I.A.No.663 of 2013 in O.S.No.938 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
defendant in O.S.No.938 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The petitioners filed said suit for declaration of prosecution notice dated 16.08.2010 bearing assessment No.183441 of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and for injunction. The respondent filed written statement in the month of December 2010 and subsequently, did not contest the suit. The suit was posted to 19.10.2011 for cross-examination of P.W.1. The respondent was absent and an exparte decree was passed on that day. The respondent filed I.A.No.663 of 2015 to condone the delay
of 251 days in filing application to set aside the exparte decree.
staff were deputed for election work and subsequently, they could not give any instruction to the counsel to cross-examine the
3
witness. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton.
affidavit, counter affidavit and materials available on record, allowed the application in the interest of justice.
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
respondent has explained the delay in filing application to condone
the delay in filing application to set aside the exparte decree. According to the respondent, due to election work, the concerned
4
staff could not meet the counsel and give instruction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent has not given any particulars with regard to election work and who are deputed for the election work. It is seen from the impugned order of the learned Judge that the petitioners have not denied that the election was conducted.
valid and sufficient to condone the delay of 251 days in filing application to set aside the exparte decree. In view of this fact, the impugned order of the learned Judge allowing the application to give
an opportunity to the respondent to putforth their case on merits, does not warrant any interference of this Court.
5
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.01.2018
Index:Yes/No
kj
To
The I Additional District Munsif
Salem.
6
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
kj
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1579 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
23.01.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Judge erred in allowing the application to condone a delay of 251 days in setting aside the ex parte decree due to election work.
Whether the reasons given by the respondent for the delay constitute a valid ground to condone the delay under Section 115 CPC.
Whether this Court ought to interfere with the impugned order allowing the respondent an opportunity to contest the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.M.Maragatham and others
The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation
V.M.VELUMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
