Allowed

Krishnaveni v. Karunanithi

Madras HC13 Sept 2021CRP/3869/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner, impleaded as a defendant in a civil suit for partition, filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of her exparte decree by the District Munsif. The petitioner sought condonation of a delay of 813 days due to illness. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower court order to condone the delay, subject to the condition that the main suit is rest

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order passed by the Court below set aside; delay in filing application to set aside exparte decree condoned subject to restoration of the main suit; Connected Miscella

Krishnaveni Vs Karunanithi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP(NPD)No.3869 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.09.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶6

C.R.P (NPD)No.3869 of 2017 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.18049 of 2017

¶8

Mrs.Krishnaveni .. Revision Petitioner/5th defendant
vs.
Mr.Karunanithi ..Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.390 of 2011 in
O.S.No.390 of 2004 dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Learned District Munsif
at Perambalur.

¶9

For Revision Petitioner - M/S.S.Ilamurugu For Respondent - Mr.K.Ezilarasan for M/s.E.K.Kumaresan

¶10

1/5

¶11

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

¶12

CRP(NPD)No.3869 of 2017

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed

¶15

in I.A.No.390 of 2011, in O.S.No.390 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Perambalur , dated 03.08.2017.

¶16

2. The suit in O.S.No.390 of 2004 was filed by the respondent for the relief of partition. In the said suit, the revision petitioner has been impleaded as fifth defendant. Due to non appearance of the revision petitioner, she was set ex parte. Therefore, she filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.390 of 2011 to condone the delay of 813 days in filing the Application to set aside

¶17

the said exparte decree. The reason assigned by the revision petitioner for

¶18

the delay was due to her illness, as she was suffering from jaundice, she was not able to contact her lawyer and give proper instructions in time. However,

¶19

the Court below was not satisfied with reasons assigned by the revision petitioner and dismissed the Application. Challenging the same, the present

¶20

Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

CRP(NPD)No.3869 of 2017

¶24

3 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶25

4. When the Civil Revision Petition came up for hearing today, it was also brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the main suit itself is dismissed for default. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.640 of 2018, in O.S.No.390 of 2004 for restoration of the suit and, in the event of the suit is restored, her right would be prejudicially affected, if the delay in filing the application to set aside the

¶26

exparte decree is not condoned.

¶27

5. The suit was filed for partition, and the same was dismissed for

¶28

default and no preliminary decree was passed. The respondent/plaintiff has filed application for restoration of the suit and the same is pending. Under these circumstances, if the delay in filing the application to set aside the

¶29

exparte decree is condoned, and the revision petitioner is permitted to

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

CRP(NPD)No.3869 of 2017

¶33

participate in the proceedings, nobody's interest would get prejudiced. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to condone the delay and set aside the order passed by the Court below.

¶34

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order
passed by the Court below is set aside, however, subject to the condition that
if the application filed by the respondent for restoration of the suit is allowed
and the suit is restored to file. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
jd/sd
To
The District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

CRP(NPD)No.3869 of 2017

¶38

Krishnan Ramasamy, J., jd/sd

¶39

C.R.P (NPD)No.3869 of
2017
and
C.M.P.No.18049 of
2017
13.09.2021

¶40

5/5

¶41

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

Krishnaveni v. Karunanithi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaveni v. Karunanithi

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

Kannaiyan S/O. Balamurugan Vs Periyasamy

Moiz Vs Shabbir Taher Bhai

Sankar, S/O.Ragupathi Chettiar Vs Durai

J.Malarvizhi Vs B.Santhi

The Management Vs Sarasu @ Saraswathy

Kanthamma Vs Venkatesh