Allowed

Alagu v. Selvamani

Madras HC24 Mar 2023CRP(MD)/1117/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged an order dismissing an application to condone a 528-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, construed sufficient cause liberally, and directed the trial court to conclude the partition suit expediently.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the application to condone delay dated 07.03.2013 is set aside; I.A.No.276 of 2012 allowed.

Alagu Vs Selvamani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.03.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶7

Alagu ... Petitioner/Petitioner/2^nd Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Selvamani

¶10

2.Lakshmi

¶11

3.Manickam

¶12

4.Sarasu ... Respondents 1 to 4/Respondents 1 to 4/Plaintiffs 1 to 4

¶13

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.276 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2007 dated 07.03.2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Balakrishnan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.276 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2007 dated 07.03.2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that I.A.No.276 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2007 was filed to condone the delay of more than 528 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree that is passed in the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2007. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital for taking treatment for fracture. Moreover, the suit is filed for partition and the parties are close relatives and if one opportunity is given to the petitioner, he could put forth his case before the court. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of dismissal.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the court

¶23

below has rightly dismissed the petition and there is no need to interfere with the said order.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶27

Considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to defend his case in the suit.

¶28

I am of the view that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the petitioner from putting forth his case. Since there can be no presumption that delay in filing a condone delay petition is always wanton and deliberate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others Vs. Gobardhan Saq and others reported in (2002)3 SCC 195 in paragraph Nos.11(13) and 12 has observed as follows:

¶29

“11(13). It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. "

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶33

Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party”.

¶34

Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.276 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of

¶35

2007 dated 07.03.2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, is set aside, by condoning the delay of 528 days delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree thereby allowing the said I.A.No.276 of 2012 in O.S.No.97 of 2007. Since the suit is of the year 2007, the trial court shall conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶37

24.03.2023

¶38

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM To, 1. The Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶39

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

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

¶41

4/5

¶42

C.R.P(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶43

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶44

¶45

C.R.P.(MD)No.1117 of 2013

¶46

24.03.2023

¶47

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

¶48

5/5

Alagu v. Selvamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagu v. Selvamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahalakshmi Vs Pothammal

V.Thangaiah Thevar, Vs M.Ganesan

V.a.Murugaperumal, Vs the Branch Manager

Kannaki Vs Duraisamy @ Manja Gounder

Anbalagan, Vs the District Collector

Pitchaim, Vs Ganesan (Died)