Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to restore a suit dismissed for default. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing restoration of the suit.
Set aside the order dated 29.06.2018 in I.A.No.262 of 2017; directed the Trial Judge to restore the suit and dispose of it.
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.NPD.No.4075 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.4075 of 2018
Sevi Gounder ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Chennappa Nayudu
2. Muniraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside
the fair and decretal order dated 29.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.262 of 2017 in
O.S.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum Judicial
Magistrate, Pennagaram.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
For Respondents : M/s.G.Sumitra
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.262 of 2017 in O.S.No.23 of 2011 dated 29.06.2018
on the file of the learned on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram.
CRP.NPD.No.4075 of 2018
order dated 04.12.2020 setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. This Civil Revision Petition is also connected with the very same issue raised in C.R.P (NPD) No.4073 of 2018. Useful reference to the order dated 04.12.2020 can be extracted hereunder:-
“2. The petitioner had filed the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2011 seeking declaration and injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed for default on 03.08.2016. Claiming that he was unwell and due to his old age he could not attend Court and his ill health prevented him from seeking restoration in time, the petitioner who is about 74 years old, sought for condonation of delay of 278 days.
3. It is also pointed out that the second respondent herein had filed another suit in O.S.No.31 of 2011 against the petitioner seeking declaration of his title. Both the suits were to be tired jointly. The petitioner was set exparte in the said suit on the same day viz.03.08.2016. Mr.Santhanaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said exparte decree has been set aside by the Court. If the exparte decree in the other suit has been set aside, the same reasons could form the basis for condoning the delay of 278 days in seeking restoration of the present suit. The Trial Court had adopted a very strict approach and dismissed the application. I am unable to sustain reasonings of the Trial
CRP.NPD.No.4075 of 2018
Court.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly pointing out that the Court must be liberal in matters of delay unless prejudice to the opposite party or lack of due diligence and bonafides on the part of the petitioner is established. I do not see any prejudice being caused in the other side, since the suit filed by one of them is also pending. There is neither negligence nor malafides on the part of the petitioner. Therefore the order of the Trial Court is set aside the delay of 278 days in seeking to restore the suit will stand condoned. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The learned Trial Judge is directed to number the application to restore the suit and dispose of it in accordance with law. No costs.”
is also allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.262 of 2017 in O.S.No.23 of
2011 dated 29.06.2018 is hereby set aside. No costs.
Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No kv
CRP.NPD.No.4075 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
kv
To
CRP.NPD.No.4075 of 2018
16.07.2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 278 days in seeking restoration of a suit dismissed for default should be condoned.
Whether the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay and striking off the suit should be set aside.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sevi Gounder
Chennappa Nayudu
Muniraj
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
