In a Civil Revision Petition, the Madras High Court partially allowed the challenge to an order condoning a 588-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree. While accepting the reasons for delay, the court modified the costs and directed mediation.
Civil Revision Petition partly allowed; costs increased to Rs.10,000; Rs.3,000 paid to District Mediation Centre.
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: 09.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.46 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.154 of 2018
S.Ramani ... Petitioner
..Vs..
M.Kirubanandam ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 13.10.2017 in I.A.No.66 of 2017 in O.S.No.97 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.
For petitioner : Mr.J.Sudhakaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
O R D E R
Challenging the fair and decretal order dated 13.10.2017 in I.A.No. 66 of
2017 in O.S.No. 97 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
respondent and another. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent, who is the first http://www.judis.nic.in
defendant in the suit, has filed a written statement. Thereafter, the
2
respondent/first defendant did not appear before the trial court which led to the passing of an exparte decree on 08.04.2015. Thereafter, the first defendant/ respondent herein has filed I.A. No. 66 of 2017 to condone the delay of 588 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree passed on 08.04.2015. The Court below, without taking note of the length of the delay and the reasons assigned for the delay, has mechanically allowed the application for condoning the delay on 13.10.2017 with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
absence of any justifiable reasons on the part of the first defendant/ respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the Court below.
3
the first defendant/ respondent has rightly condoned the delay in filing the application to condone the delay and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
4
( Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamurthy) 1991 (1) MLJ 114 (SC).
5
render complete justice. At the same time, taking into consideration of the length of delay in filing the application and the resultant hardship caused to the revision petitioner, this Court is of the view that exemplary cost has to be imposed on the respondent herein. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
(i) The order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.66 of 2017 in O.S.No.97 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem is modified by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.1000/- imposed by the Court below, besides a sum of Rs.3000/- is directed to be paid by the respondent herein to the District Mediation Centre, Salem within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) On instructions, both the parties indicated for early disposal of the case and the Principal Sub Judge, Salem is directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
09.03.2018
dn
Note to Registry:
http://www.judis.nic.in Issue order copy on 22.06.2018
6
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.
7
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
dn
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.46 of 2018
09.03.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree should be condoned given the reasons assigned by the respondent.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order condoning the delay and imposing costs.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balakrishnan Vs. KrishnamurthyFollowed¶28
Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamurthy) 1991 (1) MLJ 114 (SC)
S.Ramani
M.Kirubanandam
D.KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Parties & counsel
