This revision petition challenged the allowance of a condonation of delay application filed by the legal heirs of a deceased defendant seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree. The High Court held the lower court's order was legally tenable and dismissed the revision.
No costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.3837 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
and CMP.No.22571 of 2018
K.Aruldass ...Petitioner
Vs
Aruldass (since deceased)
1. K.Radhamani
2. A.Santhosh
3. A.Raja ..Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 19.09.2018 passed in I.A.No.217 of 2018 in I.A.No.494 of 2012 in O.S.No.40 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sabarish for Kingston Jerold S. For Respondents : M/s.Dr.R.Gowri Selvakumar
1/ 7
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
ORDER
The revision arises out of the order passed in I.A.No.217 of 2018 in I.A.No.494 of 2012 in O.S.No.40 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.
before the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam against the defendant K.Aruldass seeking damages of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 12% and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed exparte on 09.03.2010. Thereafter, the defendant K.Aruldass filed I.A.No.494 of 2012 to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay. It appears that the delay petition came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the defendant preferred appeal before the District Court in CMA.No.11 of 2012. The Appellate Court condoned the delay of 245 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The order of the Appellate Court was confirmed by this Court in CRP.No.3520 of 2012, vide order dated 09.12.2017.
exparte decree. It appears that during the pendency of the said petition, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/ 7
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
the defendant Aruldass died on 17.07.2017. Hence, his legal heirs took out 3 applications, viz., I.A.No.217 of 2018, I.A.No.265 of 2018 and I.A.No.51 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay of 238 days in filing the impleading petition; to set aside the abatement and for impleading them as parties in the set aside petition. I.A.No.217 of 2018 was allowed on 19.09.2018. Questioning the same, the present revision has been filed.
filed to condone the delay of 298 days, but the office of the Lower Court directed the respondents to exclude 60 days and therefore, the application
was amended mentioning 238 days. She further added that after the delay
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
was condoned in I.A.No.217 of 2018, I.A.No.265 of 2018 was allowed on 11.02.2019 and the respondents were impleaded in the set aside petition in I.A.No.51 of 2019 by order dated 21.07.2020. It is further submitted that the set aside petition itself was allowed on cost of Rs.2,000/- on 15.04.2021, and the respondents paid the cost on the same day and it is now posted for cross-examination on the plaintiff's side witness. According to the learned counsel, this CRP itself has become infructuous.
4/ 7
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
which necessary applications were filed. The application filed to condone
the delay was allowed on 19.09.2018. In the first round of litigation, the delay of 245 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree was allowed and once the delay is condoned, the defendant is entitled to contest the suit. Since the defendant Aruldass passed away pending set aside petition, his legal heirs filed the petitions as mentioned above.
filing the petitions. The learned Judge on proper appreciation of the facts has rightly condoned the delay. Even, if it was a delay of 298 days in filing the condone delay application, the delay deserves to be condoned to enable the legal heirs of the defendant to come on record to defend the suit. Hence, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this petition. The Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.08.2021
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No pvs
5/ 7
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
To
6/ 7
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.J.
pvs
CRP (PD).No.3837 of 2018
18.08.2021
7/ 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the condonation application by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant deserves to be condoned to enable them to contest the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Aruldass
K.Radhamani
A.Santhosh
A.Raja
K.Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
