Allowed

V.Sambanthan v. Ravi

Madras HC7 Sept 2021CRP/1508/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that rejected an ex parte decree setting aside application. The Court found the refusal improper because the application was not numbered for condonation of delay hearing. The Court set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the rejection of the application; directed the lower court to number the application and dispose of it within four months.

V.Sambanthan Vs Ravi — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶5

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

C.M.P.No.7017 of 2017
V. Sambanthan .. Revision Petitioner
vs
1. S.Ravi
2. R.Varalakshmi ..Respondents
PRAYER:-

¶8

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC against the fair

¶9

and decreetal order, dated 20.02.2017, made in un-numbered I.A.No. of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Madurantakam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.Sriram for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan O R D E R

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC

¶12

against the order, dated 20.02.2017, made in un-numbered I.A.No. of 2016

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶16

in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Madurantakam.

¶17

2 . The revision petitioner herein is the first respondent in the claim

¶18

petition and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2005. The Insurance Company has not been impleaded

¶19

as party respondent either in the Civil Revision Petition or in the Un-

¶20

numbered Application.

¶21

3. The claim petition was filed by the respondents herein against i)

¶22

revision petitioner/owner of the Tractor, ii) owner of the auto rickshaw and iii) M/s.United India Insurance Company, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶23

4. The Court below passed a final decree on 28.11.2012 by setting

¶24

ex parte the respondents 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2005.

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶28

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that there were three respondents in the Claim Petition, the first respondent is the owner of the tractor, the second respondent is the owner of the Auto Rickshaw and third respondent is the Insurance Company. The learned counsel further submitted the main grievance of the revision petitioner is that, no notice was served on him and without hearing him, the Court below passed the award, directing him to pay 50% of the award, and he came to know about the passing of final decree only after 1428 days. Immediately thereafter, he filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with a Condone Delay Application. However, the Court below, without even numbering the Condone Delay Application, rejected the same on the sole ground that the second respondent participated in the proceedings and award was passed on merits.

¶29

5.1 Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the rights of the

¶30

revision petitioner would be prejudiced, if he is not heard in the Claim

¶31

Petition and hence, he prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶35

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the first respondent did not diligently contested the Claim Petition, he was set ex parte by the Court below and award was passed and the same requires no interference. However, the learned counsel submitted that if this Court is desirous of allowing the Revision Petition, the same may be considered on

¶36

imposition of heavy cost on the revision petitioner.

¶37

learned counsel for respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

¶38

8. A perusal of the award shows that the award was passed only on

¶39

hearing the claimants and the third respondent/Insurance Company in the Claim Petition and directed both the first respondent/revision petitioner and

¶40

third respondent/Insurance Company to pay 50% of the award amount

¶41

equally to the claimants. Aggrieved over the said ex parte decree, the first respondent has filed an Application to set aside the ex parte decree along with a Condone Delay Application. The Court below, without even

¶42

numbering the Condone Delay Application, rejected the same on the ground

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶46

that the award was passed on merits as the second respondent has participated in the proceedings.

¶47

9. It is a trite law that, whenever, Application is filed to set aside the ex parte decree, along with Condone Delay Application, it is the bounden duty of the Court below to see through it as to whether the delay has been explained properly or not, whether the petitioner has shown sufficient reasons for the delay, and whether the evidence produced in support of such condone delay application is authentic or not and all these issues can be considered only after numbering the application and thereafter, the matter has to be decided on merits. However, in the instant case, the application was rejected by the Court below on the sole ground that the award was passed on merits after hearing the second respondent, when the fact remains that the second respondent was set ex parte. Therefore, the reasons provided by the Court below for refusing to number the application is not proper.

¶48

Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶49

5/7

¶50

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

¶51

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶52

10. In the upshot, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned order passed in un-numbered I.A.No of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.113 of 2005, is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to number the un-numbered Application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, dispose of the same within four months.

¶53

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
sd
To

¶55

The Sub Judge, Madurantakam, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶56

6/7

¶57

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

¶58

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017

¶59

Krishnan Ramasamy, J., sd

¶60

CRP (NPD)No.1508 of 2017
07.09.2021

¶61

7/7

¶62

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

V.Sambanthan v. Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sambanthan v. Ravi

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

S. Srinivasan Vs M/S. Shriram City Union

C.Srinivasan, Vs M/S.Margadarsi Chits

Sri Sithi Vinayagar Aalayam Vs Duraisami Naidu (Died)

South East Benefit Fund Vs K.V. Ramanan

The Manager Vs D. Ravichandra @ Ravi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nagaes