This civil revision challenges an order dismissing an application to set aside a civil suit. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that a suit to set aside a compromise decree due to a minor's guardian's gross negligence is maintainable and not limited by the general time limit.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no 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.
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 18.07.2023 Pronounced on 10.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.3584 of 2022
Arunachala Mankondar
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Gnanavel Murugaiah Poiundar (died) Velayutham (died) Karuppiah Servai (died) Ammalu (died) Muthusamy Mankondar (died) 2.Visalakshi Ammal Velayutham (died) 3.Karupayyah @ Pannerselvam 4.Shanthi Thangachiammal (died)
1/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
Vasantha (died)
7.Banumathy 8.Anjali Devi 9.Ravichandran 10.Manikandan 11.Viswanathan 12.Padmavathy 13.Somasundaram 14.Ramalingam 15.Saroja 16.Murugan 17.Karthik 18. Selvi 19.Mayil 20.Rajathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.90 of 2022 in O.S.No.342 of 1990, dated 25.03.2022, on the file of District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan For R1 : Mr.K.K.Senthil
2/9
For R3, R4, R6, R8, R12, R13, R15, R16, R18, R19 & R20 : No appearance
O R D E R
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
This civil revision petition is preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.90 of 2022 in O.S.No.342 of 1990 dated 25.03.2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
3/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
4/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
Thanjavur, in which a compromise was entered between the parties and a compromise decree was granted which was not subsequently challenged or modified. Thereafter, the first respondent herein filed a suit before the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi in O.S.No.342 of 1990 for declaration that the compromise decree entered into in O.S.No.22 of 1972 is invalid. The said suit was decreed on 21.12.2000, which was challenged before the appellate Court in A.S.No.120 of 2002. The appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.342 of 1990 by its order dated 31.01.2003. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.2653 of 2020 which was dismissed on 07.12.2022 by this Court holding that the decree and
judgment of the appellate Court did not suffer any legal infirmity and a direction was also issued to dispose of the suit expeditiously and the re-trial was commenced in O.S.No.342 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif Aranthangi. In the meantime, the present revision petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) for dismissing the suit in O.S.No. 342 of 1990 on the ground that the compromise decree could not be set aside or challenged by way of a separate suit in view of the bar under Order 22 Rule
5/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
3 (a) of CPC and sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation also. Since the suit was not filed by the plaintiff within three years after attaining majority, the said application was resisted by the respondents by stating that the guardian of the minor failed to protect the interest of the minor in the earlier suit and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. However, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner. Hence, the above revision is preferred.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a party to a consent decree based on a compromise, to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful, has to approach the same Court which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree is not maintainable. However, a separate suit for setting aside a decree on the ground of gross-negligence on the part of the next friend of the minor, is maintainable. In the present suit, the plaintiff has averred that the gross-negligence is on the part of his next friend in prosecuting the earlier suit. In the plaint, it is mentioned that the father of the plaintiff without
6/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
following the procedures contemplated under Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC entered into a compromise in the earlier suit in O.S.No.22 of 1972 against the interest of the minor. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court in I.A No.90 of 2022 stating that without obtaining the permission from the Court, he relinquished the property of the minor, is correct. Moreover, the trial Court has rightly found that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the limitation period since the suit was filed within a period of three years and the same is not barred by limitation. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the order passed by the trial Court that the decree passed in the earlier suit is illegal, since the guardian of the minor has entered into a compromise without the permission of the Court.
10.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes cp 7/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
To
The District Munsif, Aranthangi.
8/9
CRP (MD) No.898 of 2023
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
cp
order made in CRP (MD) No.898 of 2022
10.11.2023
9/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit challenging a compromise decree based on gross negligence is maintainable without approaching the same court.
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the limitation period of three years after attaining majority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Arunachala Mankondar
Visalakshi Ammal
K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
