P.Arumugam v. Palanisamy
Case brief
What is this about?
Revision petition dismissed upholding Trial Court's refusal to condone 12-year delay to restore a default-decided suit where petitioner failed to contact counsel and used a witness certificate from his own relative's accomplice.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order dismissing the petition to condone delay.
What the court decided
CRP (PD) Nos.3797 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.08.2020
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ
C.R.P (PD) No.3797 of 2019
P.Arumugam
S/o.Palaniappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Palanisamy
S/o.Karuppannan
2.Executive Officer,
Contonement Board,
Wellington,
Coonoor Taluk, Nilgiris District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 18.10.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.122 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondents : Mr.J.Franklin for R1 Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King and Partridge for R2 - - - - -
1/6
CRP (PD) Nos.3797 of 2019
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 12 years in restoring a dismissed suit can be condoned given the litigant's failure to contact counsel.
Whether ill-health of a family member excuses the litigant from the statutory duty to diligently pursue litigation.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order dismissing the petition to condone delay due to alleged false certificate.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P. Arumugam
- respondent
Palanisamy
- respondent
Executive Officer, Contonement Board, Wellington
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court