Allowed

Angamuthu v. Venkatachalam

Madras HC12 Feb 2021CRP/684/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a civil revision petition setting aside an inferior court order. The lower court inappropriately condoned a delay of 1228 days for filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree, despite the respondent having no sufficient explanation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.01.2016 in I.A.No.754 of 2015 is set aside; the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Angamuthu Vs Venkatachalam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.3541 of 2016
Angamuthu ...Petitioner
Vs
Venkatachalam ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and final order dated 04.01.2016 passed in
I.A.No.754 of 2015 in O.S.No.727 of 2010 on the file of the learned
Principal District Munsif, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondent : Mr.D.Shivakumaran

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

This Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final order

¶9

dated 04.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.754 of 2015 in O.S.No.727 of 2010 on

¶10

the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, thereby allowed the

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016

¶14

petition to condone the delay of 1228 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte preliminary decree.

¶15

2.The respondent is the 5^th defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner for partition. The respondent appeared through his counsel and thereafter failed to file any written statement in the suit. He was set exparte and an order of exparte decree was passed on 20.09.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed execution petition and on receipt of the notice in the execution Court, the respondent came to knowledge about the exparte decree and he was advised to file a petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in the suit.

¶16

3.On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay of 1228 days, revealed that the suit itself was filed as against the five persons. The 1^st and 3^rd defendants are the brothers and they were died long back. Without stating the fact and without impleading

¶17

the legal heirs of the deceased brother, the suit was filed and obtained decree of partition as against the death persons. Further stated that the

¶18

petitioner sold out the property to the 3^rd parties and as such the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court.

¶19

2/5

¶20

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

¶21

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016

¶22

4.Any reason for the delay of 1228 days in filing the petition to

¶23

set aside the exparte decree was stated in the affidavit. Further, he stated that during the time of final decree application in I.A.No.1109 of 2012, he

¶24

was advised to file a petition to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, immediately after receipt of the notice in the final decree application, the petitioner contested the final decree application without filing the petition to

¶25

set aside the exparte decree.

¶26

5.Therefore, the respondent had knowledge about the pendency of

¶27

the suit and also final decree application. Even then, the respondent failed

¶28

to file a petition to set aside the exparte decree in time. Though the petitioner filed a suit as against the death persons and obtained decree of partition as against the persons, who already died, the respondent can very well agitate the same before the Appellate Court by way of appropriate proceedings. Admittedly, the respondent did not state any sufficient reason

¶29

to condone the delay of 1228 days in filing the petition. Therefore, without any sufficient cause, the Court below condoned the delay in filing the set aside petition. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is perverse and contrary to law and also liable to be set aside.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016

¶33

6.Accordingly, the order dated 04.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.754

¶34

of 2015 in O.S.No.727 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District

¶35

Munsif, Salem, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No

¶36

costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

12.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Jer
To
The Principal District Munsif, Salem.

¶38

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016

¶42

Jer

¶43

C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.684 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.3541 of 2016

¶44

12.02.2021

¶45

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

¶46

5/5

Angamuthu v. Venkatachalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angamuthu v. Venkatachalam

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

Kalimuthu, Vs Thillaisekaran

Punjab National Bank Vs G.Vijayakumar

Janaba.Shabzadi Vs the Estate Officer

E.Harigovindarajan @ Vs Hema Elayalwar

Adilakshmi Vs N. Venugopal

K.Babu Vs Tr.Jaishankar