This is a civil revision petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a trial court order allowing a belated reply statement. The High Court found no irregularity in the trial court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the revision petition.
No order as to costs.
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.(PD)(MD).No.804 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.804 of 2018
-vs-
(Respondents 3 and 4 herein are ex-parte before the lower Court and notice may be dispensed with)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.01.2018 passed in I.A.No.679 of 2017 in O.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, Trichy District.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Karthik
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan – for R1
1/5
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.804 of 2018
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/ defendants 2 and 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.01.2018 passed in I.A.No.679 of 2017 in O.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, Trichy District.
2. The defendants 2 and 3 are the revision petitioners and the plaintiff is the first respondent in the Revision petition. It appears that the respondents have filed an application to receive the reply statement for the written statement filed by the second defendant. However, the revision petitioners have stoutly objected the application on the ground that the reason assigned in the affidavit is not believable and prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned trial Judge though has not accepted the reasons assigned by the respondents herein, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, has allowed the application directing the 1 st respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the revision petitioners.
2/5
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.804 of 2018
3. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the instant revision petition has been filed only on the ground that there was a delay of four years in filing the reply statement. Therefore, the very receipt of the reply statement by the trial Court is not in order. It is pertinent to mention herein that today, this Court in another Civil Revision Petition arising between the same parties has allowed the same, thereby setting aside the ex-parte order passed against the present revision petitioners.
4. In such circumstances, this Court finds no rational for the objection raised by the petitioners herein in allowing the application to receive the reply statement. Therefore, the reason assigned by the trial Court is found to be in order and this Court could not find any irregularity in the order. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
03.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No 2/2 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
3/5
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.804 of 2018
To
4/5
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.804 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.804 of 2018
03.07.2023
2/2
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of four years in filing the reply statement justifies dismissal of the application to receive it.
Whether the trial court's order allowing the late filing is without legal authority.
Whether the civil revision petition against the trial court's order warrants interference by this Court.
Regina @ Menavathal mary
Pulavendran
Sebasthiyar
Adaikala Mary
Ravikumar
Joseph
C. Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
