Dismissed

T.Yesudoss v. Y.D.Reena

Madras HC14 Jun 2021CRP/1275/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Trial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to condone a 752-day delay in seeking to set aside an ex parte divorce decree. The Court found the petitioner's long inaction indicated a lack of intent to save the marriage and amounted to harassment of the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

T.Yesudoss Vs Y.D.Reena — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1275 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1275 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.7085 of 2016
T.Yesudoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
Y.D.Reena ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC against the Order and Decree passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.5 of 2012 by the Principal District Judge, Vellore dated 28.01.2016 and set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nanda Gopal
For Respondent : Mr.R.Margabandhu

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(Heard through video conferencing)

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Order and Decree

¶12

dated 28.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.5 of 2012 by the

¶13

Principal District Judge, Vellore.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶15

1/4

¶16

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1275 of 2016

¶17

2. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.44 of 2015 to condone the inordinate delay of 752 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte Decree passed in I.D.O.P.No.5 of 2012 and the same was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, on the ground that the petitioner has not stated any acceptable reasons to condone the huge delay of

¶18

752 days. The I.D.O.P. was filed by the wife who is the respondent herein, for

¶19

getting a Decree for divorce. Since this petitioner had remained exparte , the Original Petition was allowed and the decree for divorce was granted.

¶20

3. Having waited for more than 2 years, the petitioner all of a sudden

¶21

thought to get an order to set aside the exparte Decree. So he filed a petition to condone the delay of 752 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte Decree. If the petitioner had the true intention of contesting the petition for the purpose of saving his marriage, he would not have remained exparte and waited

¶22

for two years after an exparte Decree was passed. In this long interval, there are even chances for change in the life of the parties and it would have given way

¶23

for third parties interest also. The conduct of the petitioner in causing this much delay seems that his intention is just to harass the respondent by abusing the

¶24

process of the Court. The Trial Court is right in dismissing the petition.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶26

2/4

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1275 of 2016

¶28

Therefore, I find no factual or legal infirmity in the Order of the Trial Court so

¶29

as to interfere.

¶30

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected

¶31

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

14.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Vellore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶34

3/4

¶35

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1275 of 2016

¶36

R.N.MANJULA,J.

¶37

Sni

¶38

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1275 of 2016

¶39

14.06.2021

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶41

4/4

T.Yesudoss v. Y.D.Reena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Yesudoss v. Y.D.Reena

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

Senthil Kumar Vs the State Rep by

R.Amudha Vs State Rep.by

P.Dinesh Vs State Rep.by Its

K.Rajalakshmi Vs P.Lakshmi

Ponnusamy Vs Thayammal

Tamil Nadu State Transportt Vs R. Rekharukmani D/O Narayanan