Allowed

Rajadurai v. Pavithra

Madras HC11 Nov 2020CRP(MD)/842/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against Family Court order condoning 143 days delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, directing expeditious disposal within six months, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Family Court, Sivagangai to dispose of the main proceeding within six months; Civil Revision Petition disposed with no costs.

Rajadurai Vs Pavithra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(MD).No.842 of 2020

¶2

Rajadurai

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ C.R.P(MD).No.842 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No. 5664 of 2020

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Pavithra ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2019 made in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in HMOP.No.160 of 2018 on the file of Family Court, Sivagangai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. V.S. Kumaraguru

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against condoning the delay of 143 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶13

According to the revision petitioner / husband, each and every day delay has to be explained by the respondent / wife, whereas, the she has made a omnibus statement that she was suffering from Jaundice and hence, she could not appear. In fact, she has appeared in HMOP and only with an ulterior motive to drag on the proceedings, she had absented herself. Therefore, the delay shall not be condoned without sufficient cause.

¶14

. Admittedly, the main HMOP is for divorce. It is always fair that the petitioner gets an order on the merits of the case and not an technicalities. If the condone delay petition is dismissed, it will cause grave prejudice to the respondent / wife, without having any opportunity to contest the case on merits.

¶15

The trial Court has rightly condoned the delay and permitted the petitioner to contest the case on merits. It is well settled that substantial justice shall be done and that the doors of the courts shall not be closed on technicalities. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶16

Hence, a direction is given to the Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai to dispose of HMOP.No.160 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

C.R.P(MD).No.842 of 2020

¶20

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

trp

¶25

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

¶27

The Judge,Family Court, Sivagangai.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.V.S. KUMARAGURU, Advocate ( SR-21854[F] dated 11/11/2020 )

¶29

C.R.P(MD).No.842 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No. 5664 of 2020 11.11.2020

¶30

KMV(CO) AP(27/11/2020) 2 P 3C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Rajadurai v. Pavithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajadurai v. Pavithra

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

Mani, Vs Ponnusami Pillai

Kamatchi Vs The Inspector of Police

Rinihappuchjeyarenjini Vs John Naveenraj

P.Thondiraj Vs Mahalingam

Lingeswaran Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sakkarai Vs Palraj