Dismissed

Muthayan, v. Palani Chikku Gounder

Madras HC17 Apr 2023CMP(MD)/4826/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench conditional exercises suo motu considered a Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of a 2576-day delay in filing a Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner failed to appear. The court found the reasons for delay insufficient and dismissed the petition, directing rejection of the impugned revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing Civil Revision Petition denied; Revision Petition rejected.

Muthayan, Vs Palani Chikku Gounder — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.P(MD).No.4826 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.M.P(MD).No.4826 of 2023 in C.R.P(MD) SR.No.25598 of 2023

¶7

Muthayan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶8

Vs. Palani Chikku Gounder ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶9

PRAYER IN CRP(MD)SRNo.25598 of 2023:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 115 of CPC, to set aside the order dated 18.11.2015 in I.A.No.210 of 2012 in O.S.No.50 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Theni.

¶10

PRAYER IN CMP(MD)No.4826 of 2023:- Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2576 days in filing the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶11

For petitioner : No Appearance

¶12

ORDER

¶13

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

C.M.P(MD).No.4826 of 2023

¶16

2.The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.50 of 2005 filed by the

¶17

respondent before the Sub Court, Theni to recover a sum of Rs.1,20,000/which was borrowed by the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner remained ex-parte and therefore, ex-parte decree was passed on 30.10.2007.

¶18

4.The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed insolvency petition before the Sub Court, Theni in I.P.No.38 of 2004 for the some other transaction and therefore, the petitioner gone to Avinasi for livelihood. Subsequently, he was affected by jaundice and not in a position to contact his counsel. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.210 of 2012 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.10.2007 with the delay of 1533 days. Which came to be dismissed.

¶19

5.In my view, there was enormous delay in not only filing in this Civil Revision Petition but also in filing I.A.No.210 of 2012. Reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition are not sufficient to the Court to exercise its power for condoning the delay of 2576 of days in filing the Civil Revision Petition.

¶20

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

C.M.P(MD).No.4826 of 2023

¶22

6.Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶23

Consequently, C.R.P.(MD)SR.No.25598 of 2023 is rejected.

¶24

17.04.2023

¶25

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss

¶26

¶27

1.The Subordinate Judge, Theni.

¶28

2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.P(MD).No.4826 of 2023

¶31

C.SARAVANAN,J.

¶32

dss

¶33

C.M.P(MD).No.4826 of 2023 in C.R,P(MD) SR. No. 25598 of 2023

¶34

17.04.2023

¶35

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Muthayan, v. Palani Chikku Gounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthayan, v. Palani Chikku Gounder

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

Benjamin, Vs Thankamony

M. Pradeep Arumugam, Vs Jansirani

R.v.R.Sendrayan Vs the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.

A. Saraswathi Vs J. Muniyammal

M.R.Ganesh Vs S. Balamurugan

S.P.S.Murugesan Vs a.T,Chinnadurai