The Madras High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Subordinate Judge's order refusing to condone a 1404-day delay in filing a first appeal. The Court held the reasons cited were unsustainable as the appeal was filed only after a High Court-appointed Commissioner found ongoing encroachments.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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.181 of 201
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.02.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRP(MD).No.181 of 2013(NPD)
1.Subbiah (died) 2.S.Lakshmi 3.S.Muniyasamy 4.S.Mariammal 5.S.Kaleeswari
... Petitioners
(Petitioners 3 to 5 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first petitioner vide Court order dated 20.07.2022 made in CMP(MD).Nos.5645 to 5647 of 2022 in CRP(MD).No.181 of 2013)
Vs.
Renganayagi
... Respondent
PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 22.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.65 of 2011 in unnumbered A.S.No... of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondent : Mr.J.Parekhkumar for Mr.Poovendrarajan
1/7
CRP(MD).NO.181 of 201
ORDER
The defendants are the revision petitioners. The defendants are challenging an order passed by the First Appellate Court rejecting an application to condone the delay of 1404 days in filing the first appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
CRP(MD).NO.181 of 201
the execution. In the said revision, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner and he has filed a report to the effect that still there are encroachments in the second schedule property.
3/7
CRP(MD).NO.181 of 201
contended that the decree holder is attempting to execute the decree for an extent in excess of the plaint schedule property by way of reviving the execution petition. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to file a first appeal challenging the decree of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the petitioners/defendants were not keeping in good health and hence, they could not prefer first appeal in time.
either side.
4/7
CRP(MD).NO.181 of 201
that the petitioners had not chosen to file any first appeal till a Commissioner was appointed by this Court to verify about the existence of encroachments in the second schedule property. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the petitioner for not filing the first appeal in time
5/7
CRP(MD).NO.181 of 201
are not legally sustainable and there are no merits in the said application. If the petitioners feel that the respondent/decree holder is attempting for an excessive execution, it is for the petitioners to defend the same in the execution proceedings.
dismissed. No costs.
02.02.2023
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk To 1.The Sub ordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
6/7
CRP(MD).NO.181 of 201
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.,
Rmk
Order made in CRP(MD).No.181 of 2013(NPD
Dated: 02.02.2023
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reasons assigned by the petitioners for condoning a delay of 1404 days in filing the first appeal are factually correct and legally sustainable.
Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing the first appeal given that the execution petition revival was triggered by a subsequent court appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.Subbiah or LRs
Renganayagi
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
