Partly allowed

Dhamodharan v. Minor Raveendar

Madras HC4 Apr 2024CRP/3005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed the Civil Revision Petition against an order dismissing an application for extension of time, set aside the impugned order, and enhanced the cost to Rs.10,000 payable in eight weeks to the respondents, with dismissal of the revision if the cost is not paid. The petitioner is a second defendant in a partition suit.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13.07.2022 is set aside if the cost of Rs.10,000 is paid by the petitioner to each respondent within eight weeks; otherwise, the petition is dismissed.

Dhamodharan Vs Minor Raveendar — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.16244 of 2022

Dhamodharan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Minor Raveendar

2.Minor Vaitheeswari .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.02 of 2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2019 in O.S.No.135 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sub Ordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.Monalisa for Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

¶15

For Respondents : Ms.Ranjani for Mr.K.Thiruvengadam

¶16

Page No 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed under

¶20

Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶21

O.S.No.135 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court,

¶22

Uthangarai is a suit for partition and for separate possession.

¶23

The petitioner before this Court is the second defendant. The

¶24

plaintiffs seeks for 2/3^rd share in the suit property. Pending the suit, as the defendant did not file a written statement, an ex parte decree was passed. The same was set aside in an application filed by the 2^nd defendant in I.A.No.1 of 2019. The Court had set aside that ex parte decree on a condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) on or before 05.01.2021. The petitioner did not pay the amount and hence, he filed an application for extension of time.

¶25

A detailed counter was filed stating that after ex parte decree was passed, the plaintiff had also taken out an application for passing of a final decree in I.A.No.782 of 2018. It was also brought to the notice of this Court

¶26

Page No 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022

¶29

that the petitioner/2^nd defendant is a Government servant employed in the Agricultural Department. Therefore, they would state that it is unbelievable

¶30

to hear that a Government servant is not in a position to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only).

¶31

The learned Subordinate Judge at Uthangarai dismissed the application stating that no grounds had been made for grant of extension of time. Challenging the same, the present revision has been presented before this Court.

¶32

I heard Ms.Monalisa for Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy appearing for

¶33

the petitioner and Ms.Ranjani for Mr.K.Thiruvengadam appearing for the respondents and I have gone through the papers.

¶34

The records revealed that the ex parte decree was set aside on a condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.3,000/- on or before 05.01.2021. However, giving a reason that there were family circumstances and hence, he could not pay the amount, the petitioner had taken out an application for extension of time.

¶35

Page No 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022

¶37

Being a Government servant, the petitioner should have been well aware of the consequences of the order. The bald reason that was given in the affidavit is not sufficient for the purpose of extension. Nonetheless, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.

¶38

Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Uthangarai is set aside. The cost that was imposed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 is enhanced to a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) which shall be paid to each of the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of the aforesaid cost, this Civil Revision Petition shall stands allowed and the order dated 13.07.2022 will be set aside. In case, the cost is not paid as aforesaid, this Civil Revision Petition will stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

04.04.2024

¶40

mkn2

¶41

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶42

Page No 4 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022

¶45

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶46

mkn2

¶47

¶48

The Sub Ordinate Judge, Uthangarai

¶49

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3005 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.16244 of 2022

¶50

04.04.2024

¶51

Page No 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dhamodharan v. Minor Raveendar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhamodharan v. Minor Raveendar

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

P.Vimala Devi Pandurangan Vs Janapathy Christo Prakash @ Christopher J.Paul

V.Nandhini Devi Vs M.Jeyachandran

M/S.Sha Uthamchand Devichandji Vs Y.Doraisamy

Duraisamy Vs Hakeem Raja

Menaka Vs N.Rajasekaran

N.R.Ponnusamy Vs Kandasamy