The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders allowing condonation of delay to set aside an ex-parte decree. The court found no error or illegality in the trial court's discretionary allowance.
Civil Revision petitions dismissed; orders of the trial court confirmed; No costs.
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: 01.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRP NPD No.1870 and 1871 of 2011
A.T.Ganapathy ... Revision petitioners in both revision
Vs.
1. Pennadam Town Panchayat
(Selection Grade),
represented by its Executive Officer,
Pennadam
2. Pennadam Town Panchayat
(Selection Grade),
represented by its President
Pennadam ... Respondents in RCOP No.1870/2011
1. The Collector of Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore,
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Virudhachalam.
3. The Tahsildar, Thittagudi. ... Respondents in RCOP No.1871/2011
2
PRAYER in RCOP No.1870/2011 : Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.573 of 2009 in O.S.No.295 of 2007 by the District Munsifcum-judicial Magistrate, Thittagudi.
PRAYER in RCOP No.1871/2011 : Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10.11.2010
passed in I.A.No.289 of 2010 in O.S.No.295 of 2007 by the District Munsif-
cum-judicial Magistrate, Thittagudi.
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.R.Gururaj (in both revision)
For respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan
(In CRP 1870/2013)
For respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran
(In CRP No.1871/2013)
COMMON ORDER
Both the revision petitions are filed against the orders passed by the trial court in allowing the petitions in I.A.No.573 of 2009 and I.A.No.289 of 2010 in O.S.No.295 of 2007, both filed to condone the delay of 57 days and 220 days respectively in filing a petition to set aside the exparte-decree.
3
aside the exparte decree. Against which, both the revisions have been filed.
defendants to file their written statement to decide the issue on merits by allowing the applications. When the trial court has exercised its discretion, which is towards substantial justice, there is no error or illegality on the orders passed by the trial court.
(i) The Civil Revision petition in CRP No. 1870 of 2011 and CRP No. 1871 of 2011 are dismissed. No costs.
(ii) The orders passed by the trial court are confirmed.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No speaking/non speaking order mst
4
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,
mst
To
The District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate,
Thittagudi.
CRP NPD No.1870 & 1871 of 2011
01.03.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate erred in condoning the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.T. Ganapathy
Pennadam Town Panchayat
Collector of Cuddalore District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam
Tahsildar, Thittagudi
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
