Civil Revision Petition against an order dismissing an appeal due to inordinate delay. The high court held that the petitioner failed to explain the delay and had not complied with cost payment conditions, dismissing the revision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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(MD)No.1147 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019 CMP(MD)No.7162 of 2019
S.Raju
... Revision
Petitioner
versus
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, in I.A.No.157 of 2017 in unnumbered A.S. filed in the year 2017.
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy For R1 and R2 : Mrs.Jessi Jeeva Priya
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, in
1/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
I.A.No.157 of 2017 in unnumbered appeal suit filed in the year 2017.
Judgment and Decree, dated 15.04.2016, passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, in O.S.No.92 of 2010, before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, along with an interlocutory application in I.A.No.157 of 2017 to condone the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal suit stating that he received the copy of the Decree and Judgment only on 22.06.2016 and after receiving the Judgment copy, he could not meet his counsel owing to certain illness and after recovery, he met his counsel on 05.02.2017 and filed the above appeal suit with the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal suit. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, considered that the said interlocutory application has been filed without assigning any valid reason and therefore, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
2010 before the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti for partition and permanent injunction against the revision petitioner and another. The revision petitioner contested the suit, filed his written statement and also cross examined the plaintiffs. When the suit was posted for defendant/revision petitioner side evidence on 10.06.2014, he did not appear, claiming that he suffered with typhoid fever and therefore, the suit was decreed ex parte on 10.06.2014. Against the ex parte decree, the revision petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.257 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed on 10.09.2014 with cost of Rs.250/- to be paid to the plaintiffs on 17.09.2014, failing which, the said application shall stand dismissed automatically. Since the cost was not paid as directed by the Court, the order passed in I.A.No.257 of 2014 became void. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.420 of 2014 under Section 148 C.P.C. to extend the time and the same was dismissed on 22.12.2014, against which, the revision petitioner filed a Civil Revision
3/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
Petition before this Court in CRP(MD)No.2452 of 2016 and this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2016, dismissed the said petition with liberty to work out his remedy before the appropriate Court in the manner known to law, if it is permissible under law. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an appeal suit with the delay of 355 days without any valid reason. Therefore, the application filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court, as no valid reason has been assigned for the inordinate delay.
4/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
in filing the appeal suit. He further submits that the suit was filed for partition and if the revision petitioner is not provided with an opportunity to defend his case, then, he will suffer irreparable loss. Grounds to be added.
though the suit was filed in the year 2010, the defendant/revision petitioner is dragging the proceedings in one way or other.
adduced any evidence when the case was posted for defendant side
evidence and allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte . The interlocutory application filed to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed on
payment of cost of Rs.250/-. But, the revision petitioner has not paid that amount and therefore, the said order became void. The 5/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioner to extend the time was filed belatedly and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the said application and the Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioner was also dismissed. Even thereafter, the revision petitioner filed the appeal suit along with the application to condone the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal suit without assigning any valid reason. Therefore, the appellate Court has rightly dismissed the condone delay application. Considering the delay in filing the appeal suit and also the conduct of the revision petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Appellate Court.
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.07.2022
ogy Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No. 6/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
To
7/8
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
CRP(MD)No.1147 of 2019
11.07.2022
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the appellate court's order dismissing the condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Whether the revocation of a previous order extending time for payment of costs due to non-payment validly bars the petitioner from filing an appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Raju
Karuppayee @ Chinnapillai
K.R. Selvam
Sigappi Ammal
B. PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
