Partly allowed

Munirathinam v. L.Pandiyan

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRP/2204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order allowing restoration of a suit on insufficient grounds of delay. It directed the lower court to dispose of the suit on merits within three months and enhanced costs against the respondent, requiring payment of Rs.25,000 for restoration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing I.A. No.256 of 2017 was quashed. The suit was directed to be restored only upon payment of Rs.25,000 costs and disposed of on merits within three months.

Munirathinam Vs L.Pandiyan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019
1.Munirathinam
2.Ramesh ... Petitioners /
Defendants
versus
L.Pandiyan ... Respondent /
Plaintiff

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 05.12.2018 made in I.A.No.256 of 2017 in O.S.No.137 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.Jaisingh

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

1/7

¶12

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

¶13

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District, in I.A.No.256 of 2017 in O.S.No.137 of 2014.

¶15

2 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.137 of 2014, seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit property and for the permanent injunction. The petitioners filed written statement and contested the suit. The respondent has not properly conducted the case and allowed the case for dismissed for default on 08.03.2016. He has filed I.A.No.256 of 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 450 days in filing the petition to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default. He further submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was just said that the respondent was suffering from viral fever and due to illness, he could not meet his Advocate. Though this petition was contested by the petitioners, the learned District Munsif has allowed the petition on costs. Challenging the order allowing I.A.No.256 of 2017, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred. He further submitted that this is the second round of

¶16

2/7

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶19

litigation. For the same property, the respondent's father filed O.S.No.161 of 1999 and allowed it to be dismissed for default. Now, this suit was filed by the respondent, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and harassment to the petitioners.

¶20

3. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶21

submitted that, the respondent filed the suit on the basis of the registered

¶22

Sale Deed executed by the petitioners on 04.08.2011. In the written

¶23

statement filed by the first petitioner, he admitted the execution of Sale Deed on 04.08.2011, of course he claims that the Sale Deed was executed,

¶24

when the first petitioner was not in his senses. However, these facts have to

¶25

be decided only in the course of trial. He prayed for giving an opportunity to

¶26

the petitioner, to present his case.

¶27

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the

¶28

records.

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶32

5. It is seen from the averments made in the plaint and the

¶33

written statement that, the respondent filed the suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 04.08.2011 said to have been executed by first petitioner. The written statement shows that, the first petitioner admitted the execution of Sale Deed dated 04.08.2011 but claimed that at the time of the execution of Sale Deed, he was not well and he was unconscious and taking advantage of this lack of senses, the Sale Deed dated 04.08.2011 had been executed using forgery. He also denied the

¶34

receipt of consideration.

¶35

6. Coming to the petition filed for condoning delay in filing

¶36

the restoration petition, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, except vague allegation that, the respondent was suffering

¶37

from viral fever, therefore, he was not able to attend the Court on 08.03.2016 and meet his Advocate, there are no specific details with regard to the reasons for condoning the delay of 450 days in filing the restoration

¶38

petition. However, without going to merits of the reason and considering the fact that the suit was filed for declaration of title and consequential relief of

¶39

injunction on the basis of the Sale Deed said to have been executed by the

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶43

first petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that, the respondent has

¶44

to be given an opportunity to present the case, of course, on some conditions.

¶45

7. Though the learned District Munsif has ordered to pay

¶46

Rs.2,000/- as costs, this Court finds that, this costs, is not enough. Therefore, the respondent, is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] as costs to the petitioners. The learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District, is also directed to dispose the case in O.S.No.137 of 2014, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of

¶47

receipt of a copy of this order. The suit may be restored only on payment of

¶48

costs of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners.

¶49

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶50

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.

¶51

06.10.2021

¶52

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No psa / sri

¶53

5/7

¶54

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

¶55

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶56

¶57

The District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District.

¶58

6/7

¶59

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

¶60

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019

¶61

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶62

psa / sri

¶63

C.R.P. (PD) No.2204 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.14302 of 2019
06.10.2021

¶64

7/7

¶65

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

Munirathinam v. L.Pandiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munirathinam v. L.Pandiyan

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

Anantha Jothi Vs Thangammal

Johnson (Since Deceased) Vs Ruckmani

Santhi Vs Palanivelu

Sivagami Vs Mythili

Ranganayagi Vs Mayilsamy

G.Balasubramania Iyer Vs the Commissioner