Partly allowed

Annapoorani v. Mohan,W/O Late K.R.Palanisamy

Madras HC7 Jan 2019CRP/4653/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's rejection of a prayer to condone a 131-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree. Ruling on the merits involving a partition suit, the court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000 to respondents and file proof within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting delay condonation; petitioner must pay Rs. 15,000 to respondents and file proof within 10 days.

Annapoorani Vs Mohan,W/O Late K.R.Palanisamy — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.01.2019

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P.[NPD] No.4653 of 2017
and
C.M.P. No. 21953 of 2017
Ms.Annapoorani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Ms.Mohana
2.Minor.Abiram
Rep. by Guardian Mother Mohana
3.Ms.Devi
4.Ms.Saranya ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure of Code, to set aside the fair order and Decreetal order in I.A. No. 443 of 2016 in O.S. No. 55 of 2015 dated 07.08.2017 passed by the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail For R1 & R2 : Mr. N. Chinnaraj For R3 & R4 : No Appearance

¶9

O R D E R Citing Jaundice as medical ailment the Petitioner had filed an application to condone the delay of 131 days to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S. No. 55 of 2015 by the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.

¶10

The Court below had rejected the application, by observing that the petitioner was in a position to execute a mortgage deed before the Axis

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in Bank and that the reason adduced for condoning the delay of 131 days was

¶12

¶13

not a sufficient cause to condone the delay, which is under challenge in the

¶14

present revision petition.

¶15

2.On a prima facie reading of the order under challenge before this

¶16

court, I do not find any infirmity in the observation made by the trial Court and that the delay of 131 days has not been properly explained and as such

¶17

the order cannot be strictly found fault with.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings of the trial court, since the mortgage deed executed by the petitioner herein evidences that he was in a position to contact his counsel and also attended the relatives marriage and therefore,

¶19

she is not extended with any leniency.

¶20

4.Nevertheless, in cases where the application to condone the delay

¶21

has been made with inordinate delay, the merits of the case, as found in

¶22

the pleadings, requires also to be looked into, so as not to deprive the petitioner from getting any relief in the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner herein is the first defendant in a suit for partition of two items of properties. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking into account the relationship between the parties and their nexus with regard to the title over the suit properties, would submit that he has got a

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

triable and arguable issue before the trial Court.

¶26

5.Taking into account that the suit has been filed for the relief of

¶27

partition and by rejecting the present Civil Revision Petition would deprive

¶28

the petitioner's right over the suit property, this court is inclined to take a

¶29

lenient view by putting the petitioner on terms.

¶30

6.In the light of the above observations, the order dated 07.08.2017 passed in I.A. No.443 of 2016 in O.S. No. 55 of 2015 by the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam is set aside, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousands Only] to the Respondents 1 and 2 herein and file a memo evidencing the proof of such payment before the trial court. Such an exercise of making the payment of the cost shall be done within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶31

order. On such payment, the delay of 131 days shall stand condoned.

¶32

7.This Civil Revision Petition stands ordered, accordingly. No costs.

¶33

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

07.01.2019

¶35

vsn/maya

¶36

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH, J.

vsn/maya

The Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.

¶43

C.R.P.[NPD] No.4653 of 2017

¶44

Dated : 07.01.2019

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

Annapoorani v. Mohan,W/O Late K.R.Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annapoorani v. Mohan,W/O Late K.R.Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.a.Jabaraj Vs Nalini Desikan

N.Ravi Vs Jaishankar

The President Vs M/S. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd.

Arul Francina @ Arul Prasanna Vs Sekar

Bellappa Vs Mr.Lingappa

Elumalai Vs Shanmugam