Dismissed

B.Sumithra v. G.Sukumaran

Madras HC13 Oct 2022CRP/1797/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of a delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in civil proceedings pending since 2010. The Court found no valid objection raised by petitioners earlier and directed the trial court to complete the final decree within six months.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Trial Court is confirmed; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; the Trial Court is directed to complete the case within six months.

B.Sumithra Vs G.Sukumaran — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V.TAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP.No.1797 of 2019

¶7

Sumithra

¶8

Prem Kumar

¶9

S.Sangeetha

¶10

..Petitioners/

¶11

Petitioners/Respondents 61, 62 & 64 ..Vs..

¶12

G.Sukumaran

¶13

Velayutham

¶14

Devaiyanai

¶15

Rajeswari

¶16

Prema

¶17

Shantha

¶18

Kumaran

¶19

Rani

¶20

Lakshmi

¶21

10 Janaki

¶22

Sarasa

¶23

Pappammal

¶24

Kasthuri

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Manohar

¶28

Srinivasan

¶29

Rukmani Ammal

¶30

R.Krishnasamy

¶31

Mohan

¶32

Vijayalakshmi

¶33

Nandhini

¶34

Anusya

¶35

Valluvan

¶36

Kodiyalagi

¶37

Lakshmi

¶38

Arivalagan

¶39

Karithigayan

¶40

Muthulakshmi

¶41

Thirumaran

¶42

Prithviraj

¶43

Kumudavalli

¶44

Thamarai Selvi

¶45

Veralakshmi

¶46

Poongazhali

¶47

Kasthuri

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

Punitha 36. N.Surya 37. Maha

¶51

Jamuna

¶52

Bhavani

¶53

Sivaraman

¶54

S.Punitha

¶55

Anand

¶56

Balparidha 44. Balachandar 45. Duariraj

¶57

Murthu

¶58

Kalairasan

¶59

Ezhilarasan

¶60

Kalanjiam

¶61

Muthukumar ..Respondents/Respondent/ Petitioners & Respondents 2, 5, 9, 10, 11,15, 16 to 22, 24 to 48, 50 to 60, 63 to 65

¶62

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under article 115 of CPC against the

¶63

order and decreetal order of the learned Principal District Munsif Judge,

¶64

Poonamallee made in I.A.No.156 of 2018 in I.A.No.189 of 2010 in

¶65

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

¶66

¶67

O.S.No.1597 of 1981 dated 15.11.2018.

¶68

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Prakasam for R1 & R14 Mr.G.Rm.Palaniappan for R4, R18, R21 & R22 Mr.S.Gopinath for R25 to 33, 47, 49 &50 R2, R3, R5 to R10 & R13 – unclaimed R11, 15, 16 & 46 – Vacated R12 – Insufficient Address R19 & R34 – No such person R41 to R43 – Gone Out NA – 19,20, 23, 24 & 35 to 40 to 44 45, 48 & 51

¶69

ORDER

¶70

This Revision Petitioners herein are the 61, 62 and 64^th respondents in I.A.No.189 of 2019, is a final decree application as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.1597 of 1981.

¶71

2.I.A.No.156 of 2018 was filed before the Principal District Munsif Judge, Poonamallee to condone the delay of 353 days in setting aside the exparte order passed in I.A.No.189 of 2010 stating that no notice was served in I.A.No.189 of 2020. I.A.No.189 of 2020 filed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased. The Trial Court took into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, dismised I.A.No.156 of 2018 on the ground that the

¶72

delay was not properly explained. Challenging the said order, this Civil

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

15.11.2018.

¶76

Revision petition has been filed to set aside the order in I.A.156 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018.

¶77

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Trial Court without properly appreciated the fact that no notice was served on them, had dismissed the condone delay application and hence, prays for setaside the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶78

By way of reply affidavit, the learned counsel for respondents 4, 18, 21 and 22 submitted that the petitioners have not appeared and submitted any objection. More over, the preliminary decree was passed on merits and the said decree was not challenged. After passing of the Preliminary decree, one of the respondent died and to implead the legal representatives of the deceased, the said I.A.No.189 of 2010 was filed before the Trial Court and the same was ordered, after hearing both sides and no prejudice had caused to any of the persons. Under such circumstances, without any valid reasons, they have preferred I.A. No.156 of 2018 after the delay of 353 days and the same was rightly dismissed by the Trial court not satisfied with the reasons stated by them. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5. Heard both sides and perused the records placed before this Court.

¶80

¶81

This Court after carefully perusing the records finds that inspite of

¶82

several opportunities given to the revision petitioners, they have not raised any objection, more over, I.A.No.189 of 2010 is filed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, who is a party to the proceedings and necessary parties. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order of the Trial Court is confirmed. Since the case is pending from the year 2010, the Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the case and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶83

13.10.2022

¶84

rka

¶85

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

¶86

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶87

To The Principal District Munsif Judge, Poonamallee

¶88

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

T.V.THAMILSELVI.,J

rka

CRP.No.1797 of 2019

13.10.2022

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

B.Sumithra v. G.Sukumaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sumithra v. G.Sukumaran

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

Saroja (Deceased) Vs Seeralan

D.S.Mohanraj Vs N.Sulochana

G.Kamatchi Vs G.Suguna

P.Madheswaran Vs M/S.Margadarasi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Palani Vs Sadhasivam

Lions Club International Dist Vs v.Vallabhan