Allowed

Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore Society v. M. Alphonse

Madras HC26 Nov 2024CRP/4506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in restoring a suit. The court held that the trial court acted mechanically and rigidly by rejecting the explanation for a 2-day delay caused by a clerical error in noting the adjournment date.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12.02.2024 in I.A.No.9983 of 2018 set aside; suit to be decided on merits.

Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore Society Vs M. Alphonse — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4506 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4506 of 2024

¶7

Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore Society, Rep. by its duly appointed Power Agent, Having Office at “Arch Bishop's house”, No.41, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶8

Annai Velankanni Church, Rep. by its Rector and Parish Priest, Having Office at Annai Velankanni Church, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.

¶9

... Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶10

-vs-

¶11

M.Alphonse

¶12

... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶13

(Cause Title accepted vide order dated 03.10.2024)

¶14

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the order dated 12.02.2024 made in I.A.No.9983 of 2018 in I.A.No.2209 of 2018 in O.S.No.5037 of 2015 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioners : M/s.C.Auxilia For Respondent : No Appearance

¶16

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4506 of 2024

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Challenging the order dated 12.02.2024 made in I.A.No.9983 of 2018 in I.A.No.2209 of 2018 in O.S.No.5037 of 2015 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai, in and by which, the application filed for condoning the delay of 2 days was dismissed, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

¶22

A suit had been filed for recovery of possession, damages and arrears and when the suit was posted on 18.12.2017, the same was dismissed for default. Immediately, an application had been taken out for restoration of the suit on the ground that the counsel had wrongly noted the date as 19.12.2017 instead of 18.12.2017 and therefore, there was a delay of two days. The application for restoration came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, holding that the plaintiff was not vigilant and reason is also not justified.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4506 of 2024

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners. There

¶27

is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶28

The Trial Court dismissed the application filed to condone

¶29

the delay of 2 days in a mechanical manner on the reasoning that proper explanation was not adduced by the revision petitioners, despite the reason given by the revision petitioner that there was a wrong notation of the date of adjournment as 19.12.2017 in lieu of 18.12.2017. The Trial Court ought to

¶30

have given a liberal approach in view of the fact that the application to restore the suit was filed by the revision petitioners with immediate effect. The act of the Trial Court in shutting the rights of the parties on technicalities, by way of penadatic and rigid view is not really in the interest of advancement of substantial justice and is not approved by this Court. Hence, the order of the Trial Court has no legs to stand and is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4506 of 2024

¶35

order dated 12.02.2024 made in I.A.No.9983 of 2018 in I.A.No.2209 of

¶36

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J., ar

¶37

2018 in O.S.No.5037 of 2015 by the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

¶38

26.11.2024

¶39

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ar

¶40

C.R.P.(NPD) No.4506 of 2024

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore Society v. M. Alphonse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore Society v. M. Alphonse

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

Sundararaj (DIED),1. Esthal Vs S.K. Bakthavachalam

Arokya Mathavan Vs N.Suresh

G.Suthandirarajan Vs Mr. Ponmudi

H.Balaraman Vs C.Balasuntharam

B.Saravanan Vs Thilagavathi

K. Balaji Vs M/S. Ismail Musa Wakf