Allowed

Palanisamy v. Saravanan

Madras HC12 Oct 2022CRP(MD)/1192/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition, the High Court allowed the appeal against the dismissal of an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay to restore a suit dismissed for default. The court considered illness and pandemic circumstances, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the restoration of the suit upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the application is set aside; the application to condone 217 days delay is allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000 costs; suit to be restored.

Palanisamy Vs Saravanan — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶7

Palanisamy ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Saravanan

¶10

Shanmugam

¶11

Durga Letchimi ... Respondents

¶12

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 20.04.2021 made in I.A.No. 474 of 2020 in O.S.No.392 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dhanasekaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 20.04.2021 passed in I.A.No.474 of 2020 in O.S.No.392 of 2015 on the

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶19

file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.

¶20

The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.392 of 2015 on the

¶21

file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Pudukkottai, for specific performance. The said suit was dismissed for default on 25.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No. 474 of 2020 in O.S.No.392 of 2015, seeking to condone the delay of 217 days in filing the application to restore the suit, stating that due to illness, he could not appear before the trial Court and also instructed his counsel. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application, by order dated 20.04.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has assigned sufficient cause that on 25.02.2020, since he

¶23

was suffering from viral fever, he could not appear before the trial Court and also instructed his counsel. He further submits that due to

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶27

the pandemic situation, he could not file the application in time and therefore, the delay had occurred. However, the trial Court, without considering the said reasons, has mechanically dismissed the said application without passing any reasoned order.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a money lender and by creating a forged document, he filed the said suit for specific performance. Since he is not having a good case, he is not interested to prosecute the suit. Therefore, he has purposely not appeared before the trial court. However, in order to harass the respondents, the petitioner filed the said application. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶29

Considering the rival submissions made and also considering

¶30

the reasons assigned by the petitioner and also considering the fact that due to the pandemic situation, the delay had occurred, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition, however, with costs of

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶34

Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 20.04.2021 made in I.A.No.474 of 2020 in O.S.No.392 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai, is hereby set aside and the delay of 217 days in filing the application to restore the suit is condoned, on condition that the petitioner/plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing the cost memo, the trial Court, namely, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, shall restore the suit and take on file and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

¶36

12.10.2022

¶37

ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶41

¶42

The Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶47

ogy

¶48

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.1192 of 2021

¶49

12.10.2022

¶50

6/6

¶51

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

Palanisamy v. Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisamy v. Saravanan

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

P.Balasubramanian Vs S.Gowtham

Prabha Devi Vs S. Muthuprasad

K.J.Paulraj Vs P.Rajaguru

Mahalakshmi Vs Indirani (Died)

Chandra Vs K. Manoharan

K.Murugan Vs Thangaiah