Allowed

Murugan v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Mar 2023CRP(MD)/75/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed the Civil Revision Petition under Article 226 to address jurisdictional delays in numbering an application to condone delay. The court directed subordinate judges to transmit records from Sivaganga to Manamadurai.

What did the court decide?

The Principal District Judge and Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, are directed to send records to the Subordinate Court, Manamadurai within four weeks to allow numbering of the delay condonation applicat

Murugan Vs the District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(MD).No.75 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD).No. 75 of 2023

¶7

Murugan

¶8

2.Senthilukumar .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 5&6

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Special Tahsildar, Survey and Settlements, Collectorate Buildings, Sivagangai.

¶12

3.The Thasildar, Thiruppuvanam, Office At Thiruppuvanam, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.V.M.Balakrishnan

¶14

... Respondents/Respondents 1 to 4/Defendants 1 to 4

¶15

5.T.J.Sethuraman

¶16

6.T.J.Mothilal

¶17

7.T.J.S.Eswarlal

¶18

8.T.J.S.Kishorilal

¶19

.. Respondents/Respondents 5 to 8/Plaintiffs 1 to 4

¶20

PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order in unnumbered I.A.No. of 2021 in

¶21

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

¶22

1/5

¶23

CRP(MD).No.75 of 2023

¶24

O.S.No.181 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Manamadurai and consequently, direction to the learned Subordinate Court, Manamadurai to number the unnumbered I.A.No. of 2021 in O.S.No.181 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Manamadurai, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶25

. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Banumathy

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The revision petition has been filed by the defendants 5 and 6

¶28

in a suit seeking to number an interlocutory application to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.181 of 2012 on 18.07.2016.

¶29

The typed set of papers indicate that the revision petitioners

¶30

have suffered an ex-parte decree on 18.07.2016 in O.S.No.181 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sivaganga. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented an application under Section 5 before the Subordinate Court, Sivaganga, to condone the delay of 1940 days and the said application was presented on 15.02.2021, thereafter, due to jurisdictional issues, the unnumbered application was transferred to Subordinate Court, Manamadurai. Even thereafter, the Subordinate Court, Manamadurai has

¶31

2/5

¶32

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

¶33

CRP(MD).No.75 of 2023

¶34

not numbered the same on the ground that the records are available only in Sivaganga and therefore, this application cannot be numbered. The written endorsement clearly points out that the records are available before the Principal District Court, Sivaganga and the records have not been called for or returned to Subordinate Court, Manamadurai for numbering the Interlocutory Application.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned Principal District Judge,Sivaganga, and the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, are hereby directed to send the records relating to O.S.No.181 of 2012, which was disposed of by the Subordinate Court, Sivaganga, on 18.07.2016, to the Subordinate Court, Manamadurai, so as to number the condone delay application, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report back the same to this Court.

¶36

With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is

¶37

allowed. No costs.

¶38

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

¶39

3/5

¶40

CRP(MD).No.75 of 2023

¶41

Registry to return the Original impugned order to the learned

¶42

counsel for the petitioners.

¶43

03.03.2023

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

¶45

¶46

1.The Principal District Judge, Sivaganga.

¶47

2.The Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.

¶48

3.The Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai.

¶49

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

¶50

4/5

¶51

CRP(MD).No.75 of 2023

¶52

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.,

¶53

Rmk

¶54

Order made in CRP(MD).No.75 of 2023

¶55

Dated: 03.03.2023

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Murugan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Saravanan, Vs R.Ramesh

P.M. Pedikka Kochunny Mohammed Basher, Vs Joyce Christy

Arunachalam, Vs Selvaraj

R. Jayalakshmi, Vs M.A. Parveen Banu

Soundaram, Vs Mangalanathan

Rama Vs Thangappa