This Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dismissing an application to condone a substantial delay in depositing sale consideration was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner's ground of ill-health was not credible and confirmed the lower court's order.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order of Additional District Munsif confirmed.
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.
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.02.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : .02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
A.K.Sathiyamoorthy ...Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Santhi 2.Karpagavalli 3.Sumathi 4.Malathi 5.Asokan
Vs.
...Respondents/
Defendants
[Respondents 1 to 4 are represented by the fifth respondent viz., Asokan as Power of Agent]
PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside fair and final orders dated 28.02.2013, passed in I.A.No.1397 of 2012 in O.S.No.848 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.A.Mariappan For R4 & R5 : No appearance
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, in I.A.No.1397 of 2012 in O.S.No.848 of 2007, dated 28.02.2013.
1/6
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
2 The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.848 of 2007 is the revision petitioner.
3 Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The revision petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.848 of 2007, before the learned District Munsif, Namakkal, for specific performance of the suit sale agreement dated 31.03.2007 and the said suit was decreed ex-parte on 18.03.2008. Thereafter, revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.1397 of 2011, under Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 1379 days in depositing the balance of sale consideration in the Court. After contest, the said application was dismissed. As against the same, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
4 Heard both the counsel and perused the materials
placed on record.
5 On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision
petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.848 of 2007, before the District Munsif, Namakkal, for the specific performance of the suit sale agreement dated 31.03.2007 and the same was decreed
2/6
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
ex-parte on 18.03.2008 and the revision petitioner/plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.10,000/within a period of two months and he was granted one month time for the execution of the Sale Deed. However, the balance of sale consideration as directed in clause (3) of the decree, the money has not been deposited by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in IA.No.1397 of 2011 to condone the delay of 1379 days in depositing the balance
of sale consideration under Section 151 of CPC, therein, the respondents herein/defendants have filed a counter.
6 In the Trial Court, it is observed that since for a suit for
specific performance, ready and willingness of the party is an essential criteria. Despite the Court decree, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has not deposited the balance of sale consideration and sought to file the petition to condone the delay of 1379 days to comply with the conditional order, on the ground that
he was fell ill and could not contact his advocate and accordingly rejected the application.
7 The learned counsel for the respondents
herein/defendants have contended that during the alleged period of
3/6
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
delay, the very same petitioner is defending a suit in O.S.No. 309 of 2007, before the learned District Munsif, Namakkal and he has also filed plaint, written statement and decree copy in the said suit. As against the judgment passed in the said suit viz., O.S.No.309 of 2007, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed an appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2010, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, based upon the above deposit.
8 Attention of this Court was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents to the fact that during the relevant point of time, revision petitioner/plaintiff has effectively conducted the suit. As could be seen from the typed set of papers, the very same revision petitioner/plaintiff with very same Lower Court advocate had conducted the case in the very same Court campus in other suit viz., O.S.No.309 of 2007 and therefore, the alleged illness as alleged by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the petition is not true. Besides, there is a huge delay of 1379 days, in the absence of any plausible explanation. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition though the petition has been filed under Section 151 of CPC and hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in this case.
4/6
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
9 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed and the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, in I.A.No.1397 of 2012 in O.S.No.848 of 2007, dated 28.02.2013, is hereby confirmed. No costs.
.02.2020
dua
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
To
The Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.
5/6
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
dua
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN., J
Pre-Delivery Order
in
CRP.(PD).No.2576 of 2013
.02.2020
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's dismissal of an application to condone a delay of 1379 days in depositing sale consideration.
Whether the petitioner's claimed illness justifies such a substantial delay given evidence of concurrent litigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.K.Sathiyamoorthy
Santhi
Karpagavalli
Sumathi
Malathi
Asokan
RMT Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
