The Madurai Bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that refused to condone an inordinate delay of 972 days in filing an appeal. The Court found no error in dismissing the plea as no sufficient reason for the delay was provided.
The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1828 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2020 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1828 of 2012
Solaimalai : Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner
.. Vs ..
1.Chandrasekaran
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the Order dated 07.03.2012 made in I.A.No.53 of 2011 in A.S.No. ... of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Natarajan For Respondents : No appearance 2, 3, 6 and 7
Respondents 4 and 5 dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2019.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai, dismissing the interlocutory application in I.A.No.53 of 2011 in unnumbered appeal filed in 2011. The interlocutory application was filed to condone the delay of 972 days in filing the appeal as against the final decree in I.A.No.1887 of 1996 in O.S.No.247 of 1994.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay before the lower Court, the petitioner has not given any reason or cause for the inordinate delay of 972 days. The petitioner except stating that he found an error in the final decree application has not given any reason for the delay. The trial Court after considering the explanation and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, dismissed the application specifically holding that no sufficient reason is given by the petitioner for the huge delay of 972 days in filing the appeal. Further, the lower Court observed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner's intention was to delay the process and to harass the respondents before the lower Court. This Court is unable
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1828 of 2012
to find any error or irregularity in the order dismissing the petition to condone the huge delay of 972 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. sdAssistant Registrar(AD II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar SRM To The Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1828 of 2012 04.03.2020 AP(16.03.2020) 2P 2C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to condone a delay of 972 days in filing an appeal attracted legal interference under Section 115 CPC?
Whether the Trial Court erred in observing that the petitioner filed the application solely to delay the process and harass respondents?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Solaimalai
Chandrasekaran
Kamaraj
Vijayalakshmi
Selvakumar
Senthilkumar
SAM S SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
