Dismissed

Muniyan v. Vasanthakumari

Madras HC20 Oct 2021CRP/2248/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the District Munsif's refusal to condone a massive delay in seeking to set aside an ex parte decree. The court held that since petitioners filed a parallel suit on the same property, their claim of being misled by elders was unacceptable. The appeal against the lower court's order was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and the order of the District Munsif confirming I.A.No.949 of 2019 was upheld. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

Muniyan Vs Vasanthakumari — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.10.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021
1.Muniyan
2.Ramamoorthy
3.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioners /
Defendants 3 to 5
versus
1.Vasanthakumari ... Respondent /
Plaintiff
2.Srinivasan
3.Theli Mestry
4.Kandasamy @ Thangamani ... Respondents /
Defendants 1, 2&6

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 24.03.2021 made in I.A.No.949 of 2019 in O.S.No.265 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif at Madurantakam.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran

¶9

1/5

¶10

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

¶11

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam in I.A.No.949 of 2019 in O.S.No.265 of 2004.

¶14

2. I.A.No.949 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 5013 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 21.03.2005. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of this petition that, the first respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners received a notice in 2004 and they approached the village elders and they advised the petitioners not to appear before the Court. The petitioners and respondents are relatives. Believing the words of the village elders, petitioners not appeared before the Court and therefore, ex parte decree was passed on 21.03.2005. Now, the petitioners came to know that they were cheated by the village elders. The petitioners have right and title over the suit property, therefore, they may be given an opportunity to contest the suit. The delay in filing the ex parte decree petition, is not wilful or wanton. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed

¶15

2/5

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021

¶18

for setting aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam and allow the I.A.No.949 of 2019.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have valid reasons against the case set up by the 1^st respondent. If they denied the opportunity of defending the 1^st respondent's suit, they will lose their claim once for all.

¶20

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioners and perused the records.

¶22

5. It is seen from the order of the learned District Munsif,

¶23

Madurantakam, that this application is filed with a delay of 4983 days for condoning the delay in filing the ex parte decree petition. The petitioners are defendants 3, 4 and 5 in the main suit. The defendants 1 and 5 are their family members and they contested the suit. The petitioners also filed the suit in O.S.No.301 of 2018 against the respondents on the file of the District

¶24

and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in respect of the same suit property and subsequently, they filed the suit in O.S.No.301 of 2018. I.A.No.949 of 2019 was filed only in the year 2019.

¶25

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

¶26

3/5

¶27

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021

¶28

6. Taking note of the fact that when the petitioners have

¶29

already filed the suit in O.S.No.301 of 2018, against the respondents in respect of the same property, their claim that, they are illiterates and they were misguided by their elders, cannot be accepted. The delay is huge, that is, 4983 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 21.03.2005 and it is not properly explained. Therefore, this Court does not

¶30

want to interfere with the order of the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam and the order dated 24.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.949 of

¶31

2019 in O.S.No.265 of 2004, is hereby confirmed.

¶32

7. Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶33

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there

¶34

is no order as to costs.

¶35

20.10.2021

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

The District Munsif, Madurantakam.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021

¶42

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶43

sri

¶44

C.R.P. (NPD) No.2248 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.17093 of 2021

¶45

20.10.2021

¶46

5/5

¶47

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

Muniyan v. Vasanthakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyan v. Vasanthakumari

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

Venkatachalam Vs Selvan

G. Girish Gandhi Vs Akansha Gandhi

A.S. Shahjahan Vs Rajamani

Sankar Vs Mohan@Vasu

A.Sridhar Vs R.Krithika

M/S. Aero Star Travels India Pvt. Tld Vs H. Mohamed Zaid