This High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order denying condonation of an inordinate 1003-day delay in filing an appeal. The court held the delay was inordinate and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient reasons supported by documentary evidence to justify it.
Civil revision petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2019
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
M.Subramaniyan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Omalur Cirlce,
Omalur.
2.The Special Officer,
SM43, Edapadi Municipal Employees &
Teachers Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society,
Edappadi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.02.2014 dismissing the application in I.A.No.9 of 2011 in unnumbered CMA (CS) .... of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem.
For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For Respondents ... Mrs.T.Girija,
Government Advocate
1/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
ORDER
The instant civil revision petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Salem in I.A.No.9 of 2011 in unnumbered CMA (CS) ... of 2011.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
before the learned Principal District Judge, Salem as against the award dated 19.09.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Omalur Cirlce. The petitioner has suffered the award dated 19.09.2008 along with others by
which he was jointly or severally liable along with others to pay the
award amount to the respondents. The petitioner did not prefer the appeal on time. But instead preferred an appeal along with a condone delay application viz., I.A.No.9 of 2011 to condone the delay of 1003
days in filing the appeal before the learned Principal District Judge,
Salem, Special Appellate Court for Co-operative cases. The reasons given
2/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.9 of 2011 are as follows: (a) He has not been served with proper notice for his appearance in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies in order to enable him to defend the case properly; (b) He received the award dated 19.09.2008 only on 17.05.2011. Therefore according to him, the appeal has been filed within the prescribed period; and (c) he is not
liable to pay the award amount.
delay of 1003 days. Aggrieved by the same, the instant civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure.
3/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
and Mrs.T.Girija, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
Discussion:
appearing for the respondents produced the postal receipt for having
sent the award copy to the petitioner. As seen from the postal receipt, the date of sending of the award is 06.01.2009. Even in the counter filed
in I.A.No.9 of 2011 in unnumbered CMA (CS) .... of 2011, the respondents
have stated that a copy of the award has been sent to the petitioner on
06.01.2009. Admittedly, it was a contested award and it was passed on merits.
defend the claim made by the respondents and only thereafter, an award has been passed. If really the petitioner was aggrieved by the award as a
prudent and vigilant litigant, he ought to have filed the appeal within the
4/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
prescribed period. However, in the instant case, there is a delay of 1003 days in filing an appeal as against the award dated 19.09.2008. It is not a normal delay, but it is an inordinate delay. Since there is an inordinate delay of 1003 days in filing an appeal, the petitioner ought to have given sufficient reasons supported by documentary evidence in support of his
contention.
the date on which I.A.No.9 of 2011 was filed by him seeking to condone the delay of 1003 days in filing the appeal. All these factors will clearly go to show that no sufficient reasons have been given by the petitioner
5/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
for condonation of the inordinate delay of 1003 days. The lower Appellate Court has considered all these aspects and only thereafter, has
dismissed I.A.No.9 of 2011.
Conclusion:
8. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in the
instant revision. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No
costs.
05.08.2019
nl
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking orders
6/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
To
Omalur.
Edappadi
7/8
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3283 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J,
nl
CRP (NPD) No.3283 of 2014
05.08.2019
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient reasons were given by the petitioner for condoning an inordinate delay of 1003 days in filing an appeal against an award.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of the condonation application has any merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Subramaniyan
The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Omalur
The Special Officer, SM43, Edapadi Municipal Employees & Teachers Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society
Abdul Qudhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
