Third defendant sought condonation of a 1,515-day delay in applying to set aside an ex parte decree in his brother's partition suit, claiming he believed the plaintiff would withdraw it. The court found the reasons unbelievable, especially reliance on the corona lockdown, and dismissed the revision.
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.No.757 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.R.P.No.757 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.5862 of 2023
Devandran ...Petitioner vs. Chinnaraj ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 16.11.2022 made in I.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
The 3rd defendant viz., Thiru.Devandran has preferred this Civil Revision Petition having aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2022 made in I.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Principle District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.
Page No.1/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
2.
petitioner. Though the respondent has entered appearance through a counsel, he was not represented.
(i) though he received the summons for the hearing on 23.03.2017, when he contacted the plaintiff (his brother) he told him that he is going to withdraw the case and upon believing his words he did not conduct the suit by engaging the counsel.
(ii) when he came to his native during the corona lockdown period, he came to know about the exparte judgment and when the plaintiff was attempting to mutate the revenue records, he came to know about the same.
(iii) thereafter, he engaged a counsel and came to know about the exparte judgment.
Page No.2/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
Page No.3/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
“ 23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no
Page No.4/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.
24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands.
Paragraph 12 reads as under:
“ 12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.”
Page No.5/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:
“ 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
Page No.6/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
Ujagar Singh and others reported in 2010 (6) SCC 786, has held as follows:
“... While considering an application for condonation of delay, no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. It has been further stated therein that each case has to be weighed from its facts and circumstances in which the party acts and behaves.”
Page No.7/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
not come in the way of administration of justice. However, the reasons mentioned for the huge delay of 1,515 days shown by the petitioner is not acceptable.
Based on the aforesaid discussions, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected C.M.P. stands closed.
07.08.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ssa
Page No.8/9
C.R..P.No.757 of 2023
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
ssa
C.R.P.No.757 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.5862 of 2023
07.08.2024
Page No.9/9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause to condone a delay of 1,515 days in filing the Order IX Rule 13 CPC application to set aside the ex parte judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh and othersRelied on¶10
2010 (6) SCC 786 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Devandran
Chinnaraj
R.Kalaimathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
