Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 seeking to set aside a lower court order allowing condonation of delay to restore a partition suit. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding no irregularity in the lower court permitting the delay and costs payment.
The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed with no costs awarded.
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.PD.No.2450 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.2450 of 2017
and
CMP.No.11556 of 2017
K.Dhamayandhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. N.Sekar
2. Sathyavani
3. Poovathal
4. M.Mohanasundaram ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 16.02.2017 made in I.A.No.884 of 2012 in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.19 of 2008 as unsustainable, by allowing the revision petition and consequently dismiss the said condone delay application.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondents : Mr.R.Bhranidharan (for R1 to R3) : Notice Served (for R4) O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is arising out of the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.884 of 2012 in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.19 of
1/5
CRP.PD.No.2450 of 2017
2008 dated 16.02.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, thereby, allowing the petition to condone the delay in filing the application to restore I.A.No.185 of 2011.
respondents for partition and permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property. After filing the written statement, the suit was dismissed for default for the reason, the respondents did not appear before the trial Court. The respondents filed a petition to restore the suit with a petition to condone the delay in I.A.No.67 of 2011. In I.A.No.67 of 2011, which was allowed on 14.03.2011. Thereafter, the restoration petition to restore the main suit was
numbered and the respondents failed to serve notice to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the said application was dismissed for default. The respondents again filed a petition to restore the main suit with a delay of 317 days. The condone delay petition was filed, on the ground that the respondents
counsel's sister as well as his father died and as such, their counsel could not be able to file a petition to restore the restoration petition in time. It was
allowed on condition that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as
costs.
2/5
CRP.PD.No.2450 of 2017
stated in the condone delay petition is false and they did not even properly mention with the date of death of their counsel's father. He died on 16.02.2011, whereas they mentioned as 17.02.2011. Further, the respondents failed to explain the delay with sufficient cause. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563 (Postmaster General -vs- Living Media India Limited) and 2010 (8) SCC
685 (Balwant Singh -vs- Jagdish Singh).
second defendant in the suit filed by the respondents for partition and permanent injunction. The first defendant is none other than is own brother. However, the first defendant sold out the entire property in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner has vehemently contested these applications. The main suit was dismissed for default. The respondents filed a petition to restore the main suit with the condone delay petition in I.A.No.67 of 2011, which was allowed on 14.03.2011. While filing the restoration petition there was delay and as such, they filed a petition to
3/5
CRP.PD.No.2450 of 2017
condone the delay along with the restoration petition.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
09.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No
4/5
CRP.PD.No.2450 of 2017
Internet : Yes/No kv
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
To
The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.
CRP.PD.No.2450 of 2017
09.02.2021
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed any irretrievable error in allowing the writ application to condone the delay in restoring a restoration petition and dismissing the petition for condonation of delay
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Postmaster General -vs- Living Media India LimitedFollowed¶25
2012 (3) SCC 563 (Postmaster General -vs- Living Media India Limited) · Who else cites this
Balwant Singh -vs- Jagdish SinghFollowed¶25
2010 (8) SCC 685 (Balwant Singh -vs- Jagdish Singh) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K.Dhamayandhi
N.Sekar
Sathyavani
Poovathal
M.Mohanasundaram
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Parties & counsel
