Allowed

Poosari N.Chinnapeyandi v. v.Sadaiya Thevar(Died)

Madras HC15 Oct 2019CRP(MD)/1547/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court held the impugned order required interference, condoned the delay, set aside the decree, and directed the lower court to dispose of the suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte decree dated 04.11.1997 set aside; delay condoned; lower court directed to dispose of suit within 3 months.

Poosari N.Chinnapeyandi Vs v.Sadaiya Thevar(Died) — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRP(NPD)(MD).No. 1547 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.10.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA CRP(NPD)(MD).No. 1547 of 2011

¶5

1.Poosari N.Chinnapeyandi Thevar (died) 2.Nagammal 3.Jothi Basu ... petitioners / defendant (pettioners 2 and 3 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 03.04.2013 made in MP(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012 in CRP(MD).No. 1547 of 2011) Vs.

¶6

V.Sadaiya Thevar(died) 1.V. Vellaichamy Thevar K.Duraisamy Thevar(died) 2.K.Mokkamaayan P.Vellaimuthu (died) P.Mookkammal (died)

3.Raju 4.Pandi

5.Pandiammal

6.Chinnapandiammal

7.Periyamayan 8.Pasumpon

¶11

9.Bose

¶12

10.Ulaganathan 11.Mayakkal

¶13

12.Chinna Pechiammal

¶14

13.Mokkaraj @ Periyamayan 14.Sekar (died)

15.Karuppayee

16.Iccourt

17.Mariammal

18.Sarasu

19.Pandi

20.Pandiammal 21.Pichaiammal 22.Ochayee 23.Poonkodi

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/4

¶23

CRP(NPD)(MD).No. 1547 of 2011

¶24

24.Thedaselvam 25.Selvam 26.Jeyameena 27.Kannan 28.Anjalidevi 29.Petchi

¶25

... Respondents / plaintiffs

¶26

(29^th respondent brought on record as LR of the deceased 14^th respondent vide Court order dated 08.03.2018 made in CMP(MD).Nos.6774 to 6778 of 2017 in CRP(MD).No. 1547 /11)

¶27

PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.11.2010 passed in I.A.No. 98 of 2011 in O.S.No. 166 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.

¶28

For Petitioner : Ms. J. Anandavalli For R1 to R12 and R14 to R29 : No appearance For R13 : Mr. J. Jeyakumaran

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No. 98 of 2011 in O.S.No. 166 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 1156 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 04.11.1997.

¶31

The facts in brief necessary for dismissing the application are as follows:

¶32

Originally, the suit in O.S.No.932 of 1988 was filed by the respondents herein before the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam, for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their, possession of the suit property. It is seen that the revision petitioner / defendant has filed written statement on 07.06.1989 itself, in which he has categorically stated that they got a decree against the plaintiffs in the earlier suit in O.S.No. 622 of 1972, wherein the relief of declaration was decreed and only injunction relief was dismissed, as against which, the revision petitioner / defendant has moved necessary application before the Revenue Authority. It appears that the suit was subsequently transferred to the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Usilampatti and re-numbered as O.S.No.166 of 1995.

¶33

The counsel for the revision petitioner / defendant viz., Mr. Manickam had expired in the year 1993. The suit has been transferred to the file of the District Munsif – Cum – Judicial Magistrate Court, Usilampatti in the year 1995, when the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

2/4

¶35

CRP(NPD)(MD).No. 1547 of 2011

¶36

was bifurcated. Meanwhile, the suit was also dismissed for default in the year 1991. Thereafter, an application for restoration of the suit was filed in the year 1996 and the suit was restored. However, the plaintiffs were not given either the number of the suit or the date of hearing. Consequently, they failed to appear before the Court and ex parte decree was passed. The fact that the ex parte decree was passed came to the knowledge of the defendant only when they complained to the Sub Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani, with regard to attempt made by the plaintiffs to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. During the enquiry that was held on 06.01.2001, the plaintiffs had produced the exparte decree in O.S.No. 166 of 1995. Immediately the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed. However, in the process, there was a delay of 1156 days and the application has been moved to condone the said delay. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and also stating that the petitioner has come forward with the false allegations.

¶37

The only contention putforth is that the petitioner has not given reasons as to why he has not entered appearance on 04.11.1997. The learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti after hearing both parties had proceeded to dismiss the said application. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner / defendant is before this Court.

¶38

Pending Civil Revision Petition, the sole petitioner also died and the LRs brought on record. Likewise, some of the respondents died and their LRs are also brought on record.

¶39

Heard the parties.

¶40

On perusal of the papers, it appears that the revision petitioner has a decree in his favour in a earlier proceeding and also an order passed by the Revenue authority. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiffs have diligently followed the suit. Adequate reasons have been provided by the revision petitioner for the delay. The Court below has not taken into account these factors and simply adopted the counter filed by the respondents / plaintiffs.

¶41

The order of the learned District Munsif – Cum – Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, requires interference and is accordingly set aside and the delay is condoned and consequently, the ex parte decree, dated 04.11.1997 is also set aside and the learned District Munsif – Cum – Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, is directed to take up the suit and dispose of the same from the date on which the ex parte decree was passed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

3/4

¶44

CRP(NPD)(MD).No. 1547 of 2011

¶45

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶50

¶51

The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.

¶52

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai(2 Copies)

¶53

+1 CC to Mr.J. JEYAKUMARAN, Advocate ( SR-92005[F] dated 15/10/2019 )

¶54

+1 CC to M/s.J.ANANDHAVALLI, Advocate (SR-92059[F] dated 16/10/2019 )

¶55

CRP(NPD)(MD).No. 1547 of 2011 15.10.2019

¶56

trp

¶57

MK (06.11.2019) 4P 6C

¶58

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶59

4/4

Poosari N.Chinnapeyandi v. v.Sadaiya Thevar(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poosari N.Chinnapeyandi v. v.Sadaiya Thevar(Died)

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

The President, Natesar Alayam Vs Rajendran S/O.Narayanan

C.Ramasamy Vs Ponniya Nadar

Ramanathan Vs Muthan (Died)

V.Manoharan Vs Saranya, W/O.v.Manoharan

P.Veera Perumal, (Died) Vs Pandiammal

Shanmuga Kani Vs Melamadam