Dismissed

K.v.Rajkumar v. P.Lakshmi

Madras HC21 Apr 2023CRP(MD)/629/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order condoning a delay of 1586 days to set aside an ex parte decree. Finding no grave error, the High Court directed the Trial Court to determine the merits of the connected suits together within 12 months.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition with a direction to the Trial Court to decide both suits on merits within 12 months.

K.v.Rajkumar Vs P.Lakshmi — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3468 of 2021

¶7

K.V.Rajkumar .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.P.Lakshmi 2.P.Prabu

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.422 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of 2016, by the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.422 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of 2016, by the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶17

2.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Though notice has been served on the first respondent and her name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on her behalf also. Notice on the second respondent has remained unserved.

¶18

3.By the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of C.P.C., thereby, condoning the delay of 1586 days to set aside the ex parte decree dated 05.06.2017, passed in O.S.No.105 of 2016. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

¶19

12.Mtzq;fis ghprPyid nra;jjpypUe;J kDjhuHfs; jug;gpy; 12.06.2017k; Njjp xU jiygl;r cj;juit ePf;ff;Nfhhp vjpHtof;FiuAld; kDjhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;fz;l kDthdJ Nfhg;Gf;F vLf;fg;glhkYk; jpUg;gg;glhkYk; tof;Ff;Nfhg;gpNyNa cs;sJ. Nkw;gb kDit Nfhg;gpw;F vLf;ff;Nfhhp kDjhuH jug;gpy; cldbahf kD vJTk; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. ePjpkd;w CopaUk; ftdf;Fiwthy; Nkw;gb kDit Nfhg;Gf;F vLf;fhky; tpl;Ls;shH.

¶20

13.kDjhuHfs; jug;gpy; jw;NghJ fhyk;fle;J Nkw;fz;l kDit Nfhg;gpw;F vLf;ff;Nfhhp I.V.298/2020 kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;lJ. Vw;fdNt 12.06.2017k; Njjp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l kDtpy; xUjiygl;r jPHg;ghizia ePf;fwT nra;a ghpfhuk; Nfhug;glhky; xUjiygl;r cj;juit uj;Jr;nra;af;Nfhhp ghpfhuk; Nfhug;gl;bUe;jjhy; Nkw;fz;l kDthdJ jpUk;gg;ngwg;gl;L ,e;j kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶21

14.kDjhuHfs; / 6> 7 gpujpthjpfs; mgpltpl;by; $wpAs;s fhyjhkj;jpw;fhd fhuzq;fs; Vw;Wf;nfhs;sj;jf;fjhf ,y;yiy.

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶25

NkYk; fhyjhkj;jpw;fhd rhpahd fhuzq;fs; $wg;gltpy;iy. mry; tof;fpy; xU jiygl;r jPHg;G toq;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; kDjhuHfSf;F jq;fsJ vjpHjug;G thjj;ij vLj;Jiuf;f tha;g;G ,y;yhky; Ngha;tpl;lJ. jw;NghJ kDjhuHfs; jug;gpy; vjpHtof;Fiu jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. tof;fpw;F ,Wjpahd KbT Vw;glNtz;Lk; vd;w fhuzj;jpw;fhfTk;> vjpHjug;gpdUf;F jq;fsJ vjpHthjj;ij

¶26

ep&gpg;gjw;F Nghjpa tha;g;G toq;fNtz;Lk; vd;w ,aw;if ePjpapd; mbg;gilapy; ,e;j kDit mDkjpf;fyhk; vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPHkhdpf;fpwJ. vdNt fPo;fz;l epge;jidapd; mbg;gilapy; ,k;kD mDkjpf;fyhk; vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPHkhdpf;fpwJ.

¶27

15.,Wjpahf>

¶28

,ilepiy kD vz; 422/2020 fPo;fz;l epge;jidapd; mbg;gilapy; mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ> kDjhuHfs;/6> 7 gpujpthjpfs; kDtpd; nryTj;njhfiahf &. 10>000/-I (&gha; gj;jhapuk; kl;Lk;) vjpHkDjhuH/thjp jug;gG tof;fwpQUf;F tUfpd;w 08.03.2021 md;Nwh my;yJ mjw;F Kd;dNuh nrYj;jp itf;Fk; gl;rk; ,k;kD mDkjpf;fg;gLk;> jtWk; gl;rk; ,k;kDthdJ js;Sgb nra;ag;gLk;.

¶29

miof;f tha;jh 09.03.2021.

¶30

4.The specific case of the petitioner is that the property in question was

¶31

originally belonged to his mother and one Karuppiah claimed title over the same and

¶32

on the basis of which, he executed a sale deed, dated 20.01.1992. Hence, the petitioner's mother filed O.S.No.71 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam and the same was decreed against the said Karuppiah on 10.07.1997, declaring that the sale deed in favour of Karuppiah was null and void.

¶33

5.According to the petitioner, the said Karuppiah, however, effected sale of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/6

¶35

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶36

cents of land on 20.03.1998 in favour of one K.Murugan, the fifth defendant and a further sale for 5 cents of land to one P.Lakshmi, the sixth defendant in the suit on 08.09.2011, who in turn, further alienated the same to the seventh defendant/second respondent herein namely, P.Prabu.

¶37

6.The case of the petitioner is that since the aforesaid sales were fraudulent, he was constrained to file O.S.No.105 of 2016, wherein the respondents remained ex parte and thus, an ex parte decree came to be passed on 05.06.2017. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed E.P.No.19 of 2020 and after receiving notice therein, respondents filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 12.06.2017 and the same was pending and therefore, they filed I.A.No.298 of 2020 on 11.06.2020 to number the petition filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. However, the second respondent/seventh defendant has filed O.S.No.35 of 2020 against the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, on 09.06.2020, suppressing all the material facts. It is stated that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶38

7.In my view, by condoning the delay of 1586 days in setting aside the ex parte decree, the Court below has not committed grave error. There is no final determination of the issue. Further, it is noticed that the Court below has allowed the

¶39

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

¶40

4/6

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶42

application on payment of Rs.10,000/- to the counsel for the petitioner before the Court below.

¶43

8.Considering the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2021, passed in I.A.No.422 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of 2016, by the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam. The learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, shall dispose of O.S.No.105 of 2016 along with O.S.No.35 of 2020 filed by the second respondent on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

9.This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶45

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smn2

¶46

21.04.2023

¶47

¶48

The District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.

¶49

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

¶50

5/6

¶51

C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶52

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶53

smn2

¶54

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.629 of 2021

¶55

21.04.2023

¶56

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

¶57

6/6

K.v.Rajkumar v. P.Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Rajkumar v. P.Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umarani Vs Alamelu Ammal (DIED),2.S.SEETHALAKSHMI

S. Kalaivani, Vs K. Alagupandi alias Bharathi

Rajini, Vs Sornabai

Inul Fathima Vs Kudpudeen

Sivakami Ammal, Vs Veluchamy (Died), 1. Kameshwari

Sri Muppili Madasamy Thirukovil Vs George