Revision petition challenged dismissal of application to set aside ex-parte order on delay ground. Court relied on CT Corp & Tax case holding proviso to O 21 R 105(3) CPC allows condonation. Order set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
Order in E.A.No.73 of 2017 set aside and remitted to Principal District Munsif Court for fresh consideration.
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.422 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.02.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRP(MD).No. 422 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD).No.2056 of 2023
Singadurai ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent/ Defendant
Vs.
1.V.K.Palanirajan @ Radha
2.V.S.Chokkalingampillai (deceased)
3.Subbaih Pillai ... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff
PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.12.2022 in E.A.No.73 of 2017 in E.P.No.12 of 2016 in O.S.No.193 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sivagiri, by allowing the civil revision petition.
. For Petitioners : Mr.SV.Shanmugarajan For Respondents : Mr.F.X.Eugene (for R1)
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by the judgment-
debtor challenging an order refusing to entertain an application to set aside the ex-parte order in the execution proceedings on the ground of delay.
1/5
CRP(MD).No.422 of 2023
had contended that the trial Court has not considered the proviso to Order 21 Rule 105(3), which was introduced by way of Madras High Court Amendment dated 01.11.1972, which empowers the Court to condone the delay even beyond the period of 30 days, if proper reason has been made out.
2/5
CRP(MD).No.422 of 2023
view of the matter, no purpose would be served in allowing the application to set aside ex-parte order in the execution proceedings.
side.
proceedings has been dismissed by the Court below only on the ground that the delay is beyond a period of 30 days and it cannot be condoned in view of Order 21 Rule 106(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the judgment of our High Court reported in 2011 (6) CTC 268 (N.Rajendran Vs., Shirram Chits Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd., rep., by its Branch Manager/Foreman) , there is an amendment to Order 21 Rule 105(3) by introducing a proviso, which empowers the Court to condone the delay even beyond the period of 30 days, when sufficient cause has been made out.
3/5
CRP(MD).No.422 of 2023
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.02.2023
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk To The Principal District Munsif, Sivagiri .
4/5
CRP(MD).No.422 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.,
Rmk
Order made in CRP(MD).No.422 of 2023
Dated: 27.02.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a trial court can condone delay beyond 30 days to set aside an ex-parte order in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 106(3) CPC.
Whether the proviso to Order 21 Rule 105(3) CPC empowers the court to condone delay beyond 30 days if sufficient cause is shown.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.Rajendran Vs. Shirram Chits Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd.Relied on¶6
2011 (6) CTC 268
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Singadurai
V.K.Palanirajan @ Radha
V.S.Chokkalingampillai
Subbaih Pillai
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
