The Single Judge RCMP dismissed two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed to condone a 999-day delay. The court held that the applicant had knowledge of the default dismissal since 2017 due to a registered letter and thus suppressed material facts, justifying dismissal of the present plea.
CMP Nos. 26117 and 26119 of 2019 were 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
C.M.P.Nos.26117 & 26119 of 2019 in CRP.Nos.1000 & 1001 of 2014
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
The Civil revision petition has been filed by the third party. Earlier, RCOP.No.1018 of 2018 filed against A.Dhanapal was ordered on 24.08.2010, directing eviction of the tenants within a period of two months. Against the same, R.C.A.No.672 of 2010 was filed by the tenant and the same was dismissed on 13.07.2012 by confirming the order of eviction.
2.Thereafter, the tenants have filed Civil Revision Petitions, being CRP.(NPD).Nos.3550 and 3561 of 2012, which were dismissed by this Court, as against the same, the tenants went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP.Nos.9097 and 9098 of 2013, which were also dismissed by confirming the order of eviction of the tenants. However, the tenants were granted six months time to vacate the suit premises, by filing usual undertaking petition, within a period of four weeks.
3.After going through the records, it appears that an execution
petition E.P.No.50 of 2013 was filed, which was objected to by the present petitioner and the same was not considered by the Court below. Hence, the petitioner filed the Civil revision petitions in CRP.Nos.1000 & 1001 of 2014,
in respect of the suit premises and the same were dismissed on default for http://www.judis.nic.in 31.01.2017.
2
4.Thereafter, these Civil miscellaneous petitions are filed
CMP.Nos.26117 and 26119 of 2019, to condone the delay of 999 days and to restore the Civil revision petitions, which were dismissed for default.
5.After hearing both parties and perusing the records, it is evident that on 10.02.2017, a letter was communicated by the learned counsel for the respondent herein to the petitioner informing about the dismissal of both Civil revision petitions for default on 31.01.2017, through a registered
post and the copy of acknowledgment has also been filed, wherein his signature was found, the date of delivery was mentioned as 15.02.2017.
6.That being the case, the petitioner herein having knowledge of dismissal of the CRP.Nos.1000 & 1001 of 2014, filed the present petitions to condone delay by suppressing all material facts. Hence, I do not find any bona-fide reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Accordingly, CMP.Nos.26119 and 26117 of 2019 are dismissed.
19.12.2019
klt
3
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
klt
C.M.P.Nos.26117 & 26119 of 2019
in
CRP.Nos.1000 & 1001 of 2014
19.12.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions should be allowed to condone a delay of 999 days when the applicant knew of the dismissal order since 2017.
Whether the explanation regarding the dismissal of earlier revision petitions constitutes bona fide grounds for condoning the delay.
Third Party
Respondent
Tenants
Rmt TeeKaA RamAn
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
