Revision petition filed to set aside a lower court order dismissing an application to condone a 1493-day delay in filing a petition against an ex parte decree. The court found no plausible justification and dismissed the revision.
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.
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P.(PD)No.3261 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.21176 of 2019
S.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
Venkatachalam ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.568 of 2018 in
O.S.No.115 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Kangayam, dated
01.04.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunalan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Renganathan
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.568 of 2018 in O.S.No.115 of 2011 by the Sub Court, Kangayam, by order dated 01.04.2019.
1/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
2.Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner was the defendant and the respondent herein was the plaintiff and the suit was posted for hearing on 31.07.2013. On that date, since the defendant was not present, he was set exparte. According to the affidavit filed before the trial Court in support of the present application, on 31.07.2013 itself he met the counsel and came to know that he was set exparte. Though this position was known to the petitioner, he was able to file a petition only on 23.01.2014 and the said petition was
returned. After returning the same, before complying the same and represented it, the case papers claimed to have been mixed up with the other case bundles of the counsel and thereafter, after 1493 days, it was retrieved and filed. Therefore, there is a delay of 1493 days, hence, the same has to be condoned. The learned Judge of the trial Court, after having gone through the reasoning given by the petitioner
for the said condone delay petition and after hearing both sides, has decided the issue in proper perspective and rejected the same in the impugned order, as against which, the present revision has been filed.
3.The affidavit filed in support of the said I.A. reads thus:
"... 31/07/2013k; njjpapy; tHf;F ,Wjp tprhuizf;F te;j tpguj;ij vdJ tHf;fwp"u; fojk; K:yk; vdf;F
2/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
bjupag;gLj;jpapUe;jhu;. nkw;go tpguk; fojk; vdf;F fpilf;fg; bgwhj fhuzj;jpdhy; vdJ tHf;fwp"iu ehd; bjhlu;g[ bfhs;s ,aytpy;iy/ mjdhy; fle;j 31/07/2013k; njjpad;W rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;fpw;F M$uhf ,aytpy;iy/ mjd; fhuzkhf vdf;F vjpuhf fle;j 31/07/2013k; njjpapy; vdJ tHf;fwp"iu re;jpj;j nghJ jhd; vdJ vjpuhf rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; xUjiygl;rkhf jPu;g;gspf;fg;gl;Ls;s tpguk; bjupate;jJ/ gpd;dpl;L ehd; xUjiygl;r cj;juit uj;J bra;a nfhup jhf;fy; bra;a ntz;oa kDthdJ fhyjhkj kDt[ld; nru;j;J fle;j 23/01/2014k; njjpapy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L xU rpy fhuz';fSf;fhf kD jpUg;gg;gl;Ltpl;J/ nkw;go kD vdJ tHf;fwp"u; mYtyfj;jpy; mYtyf nfhg;g[ld; fye;J tpl;lgoahy; cupa neuj;jpy; rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;a Vw;gl;l 1493 ehl;fs; fhy jhkjj;ij kd;dpj;J ,k;kDit Vw;Wf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ mtrpakha[k;. epahakha[k; cs;sJ/ ,y;yhtpoy; vdf;F <L bra;a Koahj ,Hg;g[ Vw;gl;L tpLk;/"
4.This is the only reason given by the petitioner for such a huge delay of 1493 days.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court made in C.R.P.(NPD).No.33 of 2011, in the matter of A.Palaniappan V. V.Thiruppathi, by order dated 15.02.2017, a condone delay petition for condoning the delay in 713
3/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
days to file the petition to set aside the exparte decree since was dismissed by the trial Court, was the subject matter before this Court in the said CRP.
6.While considering the same, the learned Judge has stated the following reasons:
7.In that case, the mother and wife of the petitioner therein died one by one and the petitioner therein had been hospitalised for a surgery and he discharged only on a particular date. Therefore, during March to October 2008, in that case, so much of calamities taken place in the family of the petitioner and he also fell sick and all this
4/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
influenced the Court to take a decision that, there has been genuine reasons on the part of the petitioner in that case to condone the delay of 713 days. Accordingly, the said revision was allowed.
8.The said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, as no reason much less plausible reason has been given by the petitioner for such a huge delay of 1493 days. Even though it was claimed that, the returned bundle was mixed up with the other case bundle of the Advocate Office, no details had been given, when it was returned and when it was represented and in that context, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the trial Court seems to have not filed any affidavit corroborating the said statement made by the petitioner in his affidavit referred to above.
9.It is the settled proposition of law that, the Courts must take a pragmatic view while this kind of delay condoning petitions are coming up for consideration, as if the delay condoning petitions are not allowed, the substantial right of the parties, that too, valuable right of
5/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
the parties and other litigant public shall not be defeated on these technical reasons of delay. But, at the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court in many decisions in unequivocal terms, has cautioned that, the delay condoning petitions cannot be allowed as a routine or matter of course and unless and until plausible reasons are available to the satisfaction of the Court, the condone delay petition cannot be allowed.
10.Here the present issue is one of such case where absolutely no reason has been given by the petitioner for condoning such a huge delay of more than 1400 days. If these kind of petitions are allowed, it will be nothing but an act of misplaced sympathy and even for that, the petitioner is not entitled to from this Court, as no reason whatsoever has been given except to state that, the bundle is mixed up with the other case bundles of the Advocate Office, for which also, no supporting affidavit has been filed.
11.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, there is absolutely no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court, which is impugned herein and therefore, it does not require any interference from this Court.
6/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
12.In that view of the matter, this revision petition fails and
hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
03.10.2019
Sgl
To
The Sub Court,
Kangayam.
7/8
C.R.P.PD.No.3261 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
C.R.P.(PD)No.3261 of 2019
03.10.2019
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition seeking to set aside a dismissal of a delay condonation application is maintainable when no plausible reason for over fourteen hundred days of delay is cited.
S. Palanisamy
Venkatachalam
R. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
