This Civil Revision Petition challenged the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay in filing a connected appeal. The High Court held that advanced age and health ailments constituted sufficient cause and allowed the petition.
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
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.
C.R.P.(MD).No.407 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.407 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.2038 of 2017
Ramaiah (died)
... Petitioners/Petitioners
-vs-
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, as against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2016 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2013 in Unregistered Appeal Suit on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
C.R.P.(MD).No.407 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
For Respondents : No appearance
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the
dismissal order passed by the Court below in an application filed for the condonation of 328 days delay in filing the connected appeal.
C.R.P.(MD).No.407 of 2017
delay of 328 days in filing the connected appeal. Hence, he prayed to allow this petition.
C.R.P.(MD).No.407 of 2017
delay in getting the certified copy and the counsel had also not properly guided the petitioners, that is why, the petitioners have engaged another counsel and in the meanwhile, there was a delay of 328 days.
8. However, the Court below dismissed the application. It is settled principle of law that, whenever an application is filed for condonation of delay, in filing the application, the Court must be liberal. It is useful to refer the judgment of this Court in C.R.P(MD) No.2774 of 2010 (NPD) (P.Arumugam Vs.S.P.Kuzhanthivel). Paragraph No.8 is as follows:
“8. I have heard the rival submissions. The Honourable Supreme Court and this Court have been repeatedly pointing out that the Courts should adopt liberal approach in matters of delay, particularly the delay in filing the appeal. Unless the delay is shown to be mala fide and the person causing delay had obtained certain advantage because of the delay, the Courts in normal course should condone the delay. In University of Delhi Vs Union of India and others reported in 2019 SCC online 2634 , had held that the Court should be liberal in condonation of delay. The lower
C.R.P.(MD).No.407 of 2017
Appellate Court had held that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay of 1093 days. The facts narrated above would show that a large part of the delay is due to the delay on the part of the Court in rectifying the errors that had crept in the decree. The appellate Court has not adverted to this vital aspect.”
9. Therefore, considering the age of the first petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To 1. Th e Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
C.R.P.(MD).No.407 of 2017
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(MD)No.407 of 2017
10.08.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing appeal due to advanced age and health conditions warrants condonation under Section 115 CPC
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay
Whether sufficient cause exists for condoning a delay of 328 days
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Arumugam Vs.S.P.KuzhanthivelReferred¶42
C.R.P(MD) No.2774 of 2010 (NPD) (P.Arumugam Vs.S.P.Kuzhanthivel)
University of Delhi Vs Union of India and othersReferred¶43
University of Delhi Vs Union of India and others reported in 2019 SCC online 2634 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudalaimuthu and others
V.Mahalinga Boobathi
Mandirakonar
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
