High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the dismissal of an application for condoning a five-day delay in filing an appeal. The Court set aside the lower order and imposed higher costs.
Set aside impugned order; allow Civil Revision Petition subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- to respondent's counsel before 09.07.2019.
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 : 02.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CRP(NPD)No.3366 of 2014
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the order in I.A.No.33/2013 in A.S.No.Nil of 2013 dated 20.01.2014 passed by the Learned District Judge at Tiruvannamalai.
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 20.01.2014, passed by the learned District Judge at Tiruvannamalai in I.A.No.33 of 2013 in A.S.No.Nil of 2013.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision:
2.The petitioner filed an appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2013, passed against him in O.S.No.159 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai. The said suit
2
was filed for specific performance by the respondent and the suit was decreed against the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 13.02.2013.
3.Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2013, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed an appeal with a delay of 5 days. I.A.No.33 of 2013 was filed in A.S.No.Nil of 2013, seeking to condone the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal.
4.By an order dated 20.01.2014, the Court below allowed I.A.No.33 of 2013 and condoned the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.500/- to the respondent on or before 16.01.2014. But, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition and therefore, I.A.No.33 of 2013 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the conditional order.
5.Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.33 of 2013 in A.S.No.Nil of 2013, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3
6.Heard Mr.B.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the cost as directed by the Court below in I.A.No.33 of 2013 in A.S.No.Nil of 2013. But, however, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner
should now be imposed with heavy cost.
Discussion:
8.This Court after hearing the rival submissions and after
considering the delay which is only 5 days in filing the appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs instead of Rs.500/- directed by the Court below under the impugned order dated 20.01.2014.
9.The aforesaid order is being passed only in the interest of justice as the suit for specific performance has been decreed in favour of the respondent against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to challenge the judgment and decree passed in the suit.
4
10.In the result, the impugned order dated 20.01.2014, passed in I.A.No.33 of 2013 in A.S.No.Nil of 2013 by the Learned District Judge at Tiruvannamalai is hereby set aside on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent on or before 09.07.2019 and on such payment, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, failing which the order passed by this Court will stand automatically dismissed. After pronouncement of the order, the petitioner's counsel has also handed over a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent's counsel Ms.Mahalakshmi in Open Court which has been duly acknowledged by her.
11.In view of the compliance of the conditional order by the
petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
02.07.2019
pam Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
5
To
The District Judge at Tiruvannamalai.
6
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
pam
CRP(NPD)No.3366 of 2014
02.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a five-day delay in filing an appeal in a suit for specific performance.
Whether the condition for compliance with the delay condonation order justifies quashing the dismissal of the application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
