This revision petition challenging the allowance of a late appeal filed by a first respondent was dismissed. The High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's order despite objections regarding bona fides, holding that the parties' rights were mutually exclusive.
First respondent to pay Rs.5,000 as costs to petitioners within two weeks.
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.4175 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018 and CMP.No.23006 of 2018
1.Nallasubramaniam
2.Rathinasamy
3.Susila
4.Shanthakumari ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.Selvakumar
P.K.Natarajan(died)
2.P.Thangarai
3.R.Somasundaram ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair order and decretal order dated 21.08.2018 passed in IA.No.24 of 2017 in AS.CFR.No.353 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur
For Petitioners : M/s.R.Sashe for Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondents For R1 : Mr.V.Srikanth
For R2 & 3 : Mr.N.Manokaran
1/6
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair order and decretal order dated 21.08.2018 passed in IA.No.24 of 2017 in AS.CFR.No.353 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, thereby allowing the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal suit.
the second defendant. The petitioners filed suit for partition and it was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 and 3 alone filed appeal suit in AS.No.34 of 2015, in which the first respondent herein is arrayed as sixth respondent. He was absent before the appellate court and the appeal filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred second appeal before this Court and it is pending in SA.No.50 of 2020. In the meanwhile, the first respondent herein also filed appeal
suit as against the judgment and decree passed in the partition suit filed by the petitioners in OS.No.103 of 2006 dated 02.09.2015 with
delay of 452 days in preferring the appeal suit. The same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
2/6
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
that the petitioners filed suit for partition as against their father, who
3/6
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
was arrayed as first defendant in the suit. The case of the first respondent is that he purchased the property in the year 2001 and he has got valid case to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the court below in the appeal suit. Though the petitioners filed second appeal as against the appeal suit in AS.No.34 of 2015 filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein, they cannot prevent the first respondent to file appeal suit. Therefore, the court below rightly allowed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court below.
Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No lok
4/6
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
To
The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur
5/6
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
6/6
CRP.PD.No.4175 of 2018
30.07.2021
7/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in condoning a delay of 452 days in filing an appeal suit.
Whether the first respondent lacked bona fides in filing an appeal after monitoring prior proceedings.
Nallasubramaniam
Rathinasamy
Susila
Shanthakumari
Selvakumar
P.K.Natarajan(died)
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
