Allowed

A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC6 Jul 2023CRP(MD)/8/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a trial court order rejecting a restoration application due to an 82-day delay. The High Court found insufficient reasons for the rejection and emphasized a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Indian jurisprudence. The revision was allowed, and the delay was condoned subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The application for condoning the delay of 82 days is allowed, provided the petitioner pays Rs.2,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam Vs Government… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.8 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.8 of 2018 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD) No.43 of 2018

¶8

Arulmigu Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadsamy Deity Arulmigu Sri Vembadi Sudalaimandasamy Kovil, Kottarakurichi, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District Through its Paramparai Tharmakartha/Poosari Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham S/o.Late Theivathadiya Pillai, Door No.1/103, Utchimahali Amman Kovil Street, Kottarakurichi, Srivaikuntam Taluk. ... Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶9

-vsThe Government of Tamil Nadu Through its District Collector, Korampallam, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondent/ Respondents/Defendant

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.239 of 2017 in O.S.No.219 of 2011, dated 23.06.2017, on the file of the District Munsif Court,

¶11

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

¶12

1/6

¶13

C.R.P.(MD).No.8 of 2018

¶14

Srivaikundam.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vellaichamy For Respondent : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/

¶18

plaintiff under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.239 of 2017 in O.S.No.219 of 2011, dated 23.06.2017, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

¶19

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. He filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction.

¶20

3. According to the petitioner, the suit was dismissed for default on 28.06.2016. However, he has filed an application for restoration with a delay of 82 days. The petitioner has prayed the trial Court to condone the delay, on

¶21

the ground that he was suffering from fever and leg pain. However, the learned trial Judge, while rejecting the plea of the petitioner, relied upon the various Circulars of the High Court.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.(MD).No.8 of 2018

¶25

4. This Court has perused the R.O.Cs, which have been referred to by the learned trial Judge. In the above R.O.Cs, this Court has directed the District Judiciary to dispose of the old matters in a time bound manner. However, in the impugned order, though the learned trial Judge referred all the circulars, did not advert any reasons as to why she has disbelieved the statement of the petitioner.

¶26

5. Here the very delay is only 82 days. Further what the petitioner wants an order on merit. Every one may affect by illness, and in such an event there may be some delay. It is a settled proposition of law that the word “Sufficient Cause” shall receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 575 (Shakuntala Devi Jain

¶27

Vs Kuntal Kumari).

¶28

6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, thereby, allowing the application for condoning the delay of 82 days. However, this Court would like to test to the

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.(MD).No.8 of 2018

¶32

bonafide of the petitioner by awarding costs.

¶33

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed thereby

¶34

condoning the delay, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without any further reference to the order of this Court. Both parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the case, since the matter is of the year 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

06.07.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.(MD).No.8 of 2018

¶40

¶41

The District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

¶42

2. The District Collector, Korampallam, Thoothukudi District.

¶43

Copy to:

¶44

1. The Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

C.R.P.(MD).No.8 of 2018

¶48

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶49

ebsi

¶50

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.8 of 2018

¶51

06.07.2023

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

Poomayil Vs Rakkan

Marikannu Vs S.Muthusamy

N.Thayasowmi Vs S.Ariramakrishnan

Muthuvenkatachalapathi Vs Ramiah @ Ramakrishnan Ambalam

Sheik Abdul Kader Vs Ahammed Farida Ammal

Vathsala Vs the Executive Engineer