Allowed

Kanagalakshmi v. Kaliyamoorthi @ Kaliyapermual

Madras HC27 Jul 2021CRP/2818/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing an application to condone delay in re-presenting a plaint. The court quashed the lower court's order, granting the petitioner one more opportunity to prosecute the suit upon payment of costs to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 14.03.2018 dismissing the condonation petition was set aside; the petitioner must pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondent within two weeks, failing which the order cancels automatically.

Kanagalakshmi Vs Kaliyamoorthi @ Kaliyapermual — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2818 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No. 2818 of 2018

¶7

Kanagalakshmi .... Petitioner
Vs
1. Kaliyamoorthi @ Kaliyaperumal
2. Ramamoorthi .... Respondents

¶8

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.03.2018 made in I.A.No.190 of 2013 in unnumbered Suit/2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Karaikal.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sounthar For R1 : Mr.S.L.Sudarsanam For R2 : No appearance

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.03.2018 made in I.A.No.190 of 2013 in unnumbered Suit/2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Karaikal, thereby dismissing the petition to condone the delay in re-presentation of the suit.

¶12

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

¶13

1/4

¶14

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2818 of 2018

¶15

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents

¶16

are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit to cancel the sale deed dated 12.10.2001 stood in favour of the second defendant vide document No.1590 of 2001. The plaint was presented on 04.01.2010, it was

¶17

returned for want of some corrections. Thereafter, it was re-presented with a delay of 304 days.

¶18

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition reveals that after return of the plaint, the counsel had represented the same and which was posted for clarification on 21.02.2011. On that day, the earlier counsel did not appear and again it

¶19

was returned by fixing the time for re-presentation as two weeks. Therefore, the petitioner has got back the entire bundle from the earlier counsel and engaged a new counsel to pursue the suit. As such, the delay

¶20

of 304 days in filing the petition in re-presentation of the plaint.

¶21

However, the Court below dismissed the petition to

¶22

condone the delay in re-presentation of the suit, for the reason that the delay is not properly explained by the petitioner and each and every day delay has to be explained.

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2818 of 2018

¶26

The suit is filed to cancel the sale deed and as such, the

¶27

petitioner may be given one more opportunity to pursue the suit. Any prejudice caused to the respondent should be compensated by cost.

¶28

In view of the above, the order 14.03.2018 made in I.A.No.190

¶29

of 2013 in unnumbered Suit/2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Karaikal, is hereby set aside on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the first respondent herein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the order shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court and on such payment, the trial Court is directed to number the suit if it is

¶30

otherwise in order and proceed with the suit.

¶31

With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands

¶32

allowed. No costs.

¶33

27.07.2021

¶34

Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2818 of 2018

¶38

Lpp

¶39

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶40

¶41

The Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Karaikal

¶42

C.R.P.(PD) No.2818 of 2018

¶43

27.07.2021

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

Kanagalakshmi v. Kaliyamoorthi @ Kaliyapermual

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagalakshmi v. Kaliyamoorthi @ Kaliyapermual

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Murugesan Vs C.Senthilkumar

Murahari Vs Selvaraj

K.Balaji Rao Vs K.Hanumantha Rao

Varadharaja Pillai Vs Narayanan

Uma Kirubakaran Vs Sriramulu Pillai (Died)

J.Gunasekaran Vs Sarala