Allowed

The Tahsildar v. Narasimhan I.A.S.

Madras HC23 Oct 2024CMP/18171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government petitioners sought condonation of a 1570-day delay in filing a writ appeal, citing Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. The respondent did not appear. The court allowed the petition on terms, requiring deposit of Rs.10,000 to the Legal Services Authority, with compliance to be reported.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1570 days in filing the writ appeal condoned on condition of Rs.10,000/- deposit to Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority; compliance to be reported on 24.10.2024.

The Tahsildar Vs Narasimhan I.A.S. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.10.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶8

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in

¶9

W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶10

1.The Tahsildar, Pallavaram Taluk, Chennai - 600 043.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu, (Suo-motu impleaded as 2nd respondent in W.P.No.5570 of 2017 by order dated 13.02.2020)

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Narasimhan I.A.S., Educational and Charitable Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee, N.Ranjit, E58, 5th Avenue, Anna Nagar (East) Chennai - 600 102. ... Respondent

¶15

Page 1

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶18

Prayer :- Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1570 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 13.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.5570 of 2017.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For Respondent : No appearance

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )

¶22

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 1570 days in filing the above Writ Appeal.

¶23

2.Despite notice being served on the sole respondent and the name of

¶24

the respondent being printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the respondent.

¶25

3.Though the Appeal is filed with an inordinate delay, the petitioners,

¶26

Page 2

¶27

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

¶28

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶29

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, have stated that, due to restriction during lockdown during Covid-19 Pandemic throughout India and the subsequent waves, they could not follow up the matter. Even though the period is excluded, still there is a delay, which has been explained by the petitioner in the affidavit by giving reasons. Though this Court has no other material to discard the reasons for the present, considering the fact that the Appeal is filed with an inordinate delay and the respondent has also not responded, this Court is inclined to allow the petition on terms.

¶30

4.Accordingly, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned on

¶31

condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.

¶32

5.Post the matter on 24.10.2024 for reporting compliance.

¶33

Page 3

¶34

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

¶35

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶36

(S.S.S.R., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 23.10.2024

¶37

mkn

¶38

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶39

¶40

The Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.

¶41

S.S. SUNDAR, J. and Dr.A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

¶42

Page 4

¶43

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

¶44

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶45

mkn

¶46

C.M.P.No.18171 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.105945 of 2024

¶47

23.10.2024

¶48

Page 5

¶49

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

The Tahsildar v. Narasimhan I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar v. Narasimhan I.A.S.

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

S.Silambarasan Vs The Superintending Engineer

Sembuthukula Arakattalai Vs the Commissioner

B. Pingalan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Vs a.Thangamariyappan

T.K.S.Pugazhendhi Vs Mr.Ebenezar Inbaraj

The State Of Tamil Nadu Vs E.Jeba Bella Mercily