High Court restored an appeal dismissed for default, allowing the petitioner one more chance to argue. The court directed payment of Rs.25,000 as costs, with disposal on merits to follow within eight weeks, citing interest of justice.
Appeal restored on payment of Rs.25,000 within four weeks; disposal on merits within eight weeks.
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 (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 16.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
V.Gunasundari ...Petitioner
Vs
1. M/s. Perfect Benefit Fund Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Having Office at No.10,
Soorammal Street, Chennai 600 008.
2. Vamana Auctioneers,
Rep. by its Manager,
R.No.137, First Floor,
No.17, O.S.Building, E.K.Guru Street, Periamet,
Chennai 600 003.
3. T.Nagarajan
4. S.Raja ..Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order made in CMP.No.621 of 2017 in A.S.No.237 of 2013, dated 20.11.2017 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the said miscellaneous petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kannan
For Respondents for R1 to R3 : No Appearance for R4 : Mr.Arvavindan for M/s.Arulselvam Associates
1/ 6
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in CMP.No.621 of 2017
in A.S.No.237 of 2013, dated 20.11.2017, wherein the petition for
restoration of the appeal was rejected.
the appeal A.S.No.237 of 2013 was filed, however it came to be dismissed for default on 18.04.2017. The present petition was filed to restore the appeal. The learned appellate judge dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
would state that the petitioner is the owner of the property and the
2/ 6
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
defendants sold the property in the auction held on 07.03.2008 without following the procedure. When the right of the petitioner in the immovable property is involved, she should be given opportunity to pursue the appeal. He further added that the suit property is worth about
Rs.50 Lakhs, but it was sold for a meagre sum.
respondent would argue that the suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. However to prolong the litigation, the present petition has been filed. He further contended that in the year 2014 itself, the appeal was ready for arguments, but the petitioner allowed the appeal to be dismissed for default and thereafter, the appeal was restored in the year 2017. Though sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, she
has not utilized, hence, she is not entitled for restoration of the appeal.
perused the materials available on record.
3/ 6
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
declaration and for consequential injunction. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a mortgagor and the property was mortgaged in favour of the first defendant while availing loan. Due to default in payment of the loan amount, the property was brought for auction and it was held on 07.03.2008. Challenging the conduct of the auction held on 07.03.2008, the petitioner filed the suit. It is brought to the notice that the petitioner has filed another suit OS.No.3667 of 2009 challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the auction purchaser and the same is pending in part heard stage.
filed in the year 2013 and the same was dismissed for default first time on 13.11.2014. Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioner it was restored and posted for arguments on 24.03.2017, 03.04.2017 and 18.04.2017. Admittedly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was absent in the above three hearings, hence the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 18.04.2017. The conduct of the petitioner shows that she was not diligent in pursuing the appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is to be given one more opportunity to argue the
4/ 6
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
appeal. The inconvenience caused to the respondents cannot be lost sight. In such circumstances, the appeal shall be restored on payment of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the respondents within a period of four weeks. On such compliance, the appeal A.S.No.237 of 2013 shall be restored and disposed of on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks therefrom.
5/ 6
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.J.
pvs
CRP (NPD).No.1212 of 2018
16.08.2021
6/ 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate judgment dismissed for non-appearance can be restored in the interest of justice.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity to argue the appeal despite prior default.
Whether restoration of the appeal is warranted subject to payment of costs.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Gunasundari
M/s. Perfect Benefit Fund Ltd.
Vamana Auctioneers
T.Nagarajan
S.Raja
K.Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
