The court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to set aside a lower court order rejecting the petitioners application for condoning a 929-day delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The court held the assigned reasons, including alleged compromise and counsel inaction, were insufficient.
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with 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 OF MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 357 of 2015
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2015
1. Pappammal
2. Gopi ...Petitioners
Vs
1. P.Subramani
2. Ramamurthy
3. Jegadeesan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 10.09.2014 passed in I.A.No.566 of 2012 in O.S.No.247 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Musnif, Sholinghar, Vellore District.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Mani For Respondents : Mr.N.Damodaran for R1
No Appearance for R2 & R3
2
O R D E R
The present revision is against the rejection of the petitioners
application seeking to condone the delay of 929 days for filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that, though they engaged counsels before the trial Court, the hearing dates were not informed to them by the counsels. Further, the petitioner have stated that the parties
have entered into a compromise and therefore, they have not filed the
application in time.
denying the compromise alleged by the petitioners herein and even in the evidences, such a compromise has been denied. As such, it cannot be held
that the parties have arrived at a compromise.
the counsel had not informed about the hearing dates, which resulted in the
petitioners herein being set ex-parte. Such a reason cannot be termed as a sufficient cause for the delay. When the petitioners herein have chosen to
engage a counsel and incase the counsel had not appeared before the Court http://www.judis.nic.in
3
below, the subsequent delay of 929 days after the ex-parte decree came to be passed has not been explained. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the petitioners herein have not chosen to file an application after the ex-parte decree was passed.
denied by the respondents, I am of the view that the reasons assigned in their application seeking for condoning the delay of 929 days, cannot be termed as a sufficient cause. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order
of the trial Court in rejecting the petitioners application filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.01.2019
Index:Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No hvk
4
M.S.RAMESH.,J
hvk
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 357 of 2015
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2015
02.01.2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the reason assigned by petitioners for condoning 929 days of delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree amounts to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the alleged compromise between parties can be accepted as a valid ground for condoning the delay given that respondents denied the same.
Whether the failure of the filed counsel to inform hearing dates is a sufficient explanation for the excessive delay.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappammal
Gopi
P.Subramani
Ramamurthy
Jegadeesan
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
