In a Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the Court rejected the application to condone an 847-day delay in filing a second appeal, finding the petitioner's explanations insufficient and lacking vigilance, dismissing the petition and the underlying second appeal.
Petition for condonation of delay dismissed with costs; Second Appeal 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 04.07.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
C.M.P. No. 1679 of 2019
in
S.A. SR. No.122401 of 2018
The Commissioner,
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
B.B. Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Coimbatore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited Registered Society under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act Represented by the Deputy Registrar/ Special Officer, Mr.R.Periasamy, P.B. No.1098, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002. ... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P. No. 1679 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 41 Rule III A r/w Rule 1 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 847 days in the filing the Second Appeal.
2
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Magesh For Respondent : Mr. R.Bharath Kumar
ORDER
The petition has been laid to condone the delay of 847 days in preferring the second appeal.
permanent injunction against the petitioner. After contest, it is found that the abovesaid suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. The matter was taken on appeal by the respondent/plaintiff in A.S.No.101 of 2013 and it seen that the first appellate Court was pleased to setaside the judgment and decree of trial Court and granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for on 11.03.2016. Impugning the same, the petitioner/appellant has come forward with the second appeal, however, as there occurred a delay of 847 days in preferring
the appeal, to condone the delay, the abovesaid petition has been laid.
3
the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court on 11.03.2016 itself and also aware of the fact that the case had went against him. Despite the same, it is found that the petitioner/appellant had not preferred the appeal in time. For the delay occurred, with reference to the same, according to the petitioner, during the review meeting in April 2018, the concerned suit clerk had contacted the counsel who had appeared in the first appellate Court and came to know that the counsel had failed to file the copy application in time for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and as the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court needs reversal, it is stated that the petitioner/appellant had been necessitated to prefer the appeal and hence, the delay had occurred.
4
per law, within the time prescribed. On the other hand, though the first appeal is found to have disposed of on 11.03.2016, thereafter, for more than two years, no steps had been taken whatsoever by the petitioner/appellant to prefer the appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. Very coolly, it is now stated that only during the review meeting, at the endeavour of the concerned suit clerk, it has come to their knowledge that they had failed to file the copy application in time and as they have a good case in the matter, they had chosen to file the appeal and accordingly had come forward with a petition to condone the delay. As to why prior to April 2018 no steps had been taken to prefer the appeal on the part of the petitioner/appellant despite having knowledge of the disposal of the
first appeal, there is no proper explanation on the part of the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant cannot put forth lame excuses as if there has been administrative delay in getting
the opinion from the lower court counsel as regards the preferring of second appeal etc., and if really, the petitioner/appellant had a sound case to agitate in the appellate forum, as rightly contended by the
5
respondent's counsel, every endeavour would have been made by the petitioner to ensure that the appeal has been preferred in time.
6
principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand.
09.07.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sli
To
1. The Coimbatore District Consumer
Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited
Registered Society under Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Act
Represented by the Deputy Registrar/
Special Officer, Mr.R.Periasamy,
P.B. No.1098, R.S.Puram,
Coimbatore – 641 002.
7
T.RAVINDRAN,J.
sli
Pre-delivery Order in
C.M.P. No. 1679 of 2019
in
S.A. SR. No.122401 of 2018
09.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition to condone a delay of 847 days in filing a second appeal is maintainable.
Whether administrative delay or ignorance of the certified copy of the judgment constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan MumbaiFollowed¶34
(2012) 5 SCC 157 (Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
Coimbatore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited
Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
