Allowed

Deenadayalu v. Ravichandran

Madras HC25 Apr 2024CRP/981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of an application to restore a restoration petition in a specific performance suit. The court held that pleading medical illness (jaundice) constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance and set aside the order, restoring I.A.No.106 of 2017 with directions to decide the underlying restoration application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.11.2019 in I.A.No.106 of 2017 set aside; application restored; trial court directed to decide I.A.No.853 of 2011 by 31.07.2024; no costs; connected CMP closed.

Deenadayalu Vs Ravichandran — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.No.981 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.981 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.5091 of 2022

Deenadayalu

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Ravichandran 2.Mayilvaganam

¶11

3.The Sub Registrar Pallipet, Pallipet Taluk Tiruvallur District.

4.Bharathi

5.S.Amudha

... Respondents

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.11.2019 in I.A.No.106 of 2017 in I.A.No.853 of 2011 in O.S.No.249 of 2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Shanmuga Sundara Babu For Respondents : Dr.S.Surya Additional Government Pleader - for R3 R1 and R5 - Not ready in Notice R2 and R4 - Refused

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The respondents in I.A.No.106 of 2017 have remained exparte in the

¶19

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

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

C.R.P.No.981 of 2022

¶22

proceedings and therefore notice is dispensed with for them in this revision.

¶23

The second respondent and fourth respondent have been served in the revision, but they have not entered appearance. Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, Dr.S.Surya takes notice.

¶24

O.S.No.249 of 2008 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.04.2008. The said suit was presented on 28.08.2008. Thereafter, a written statement was received and the suit was posted for trial. The suit was listed on 07.07.2010. For want of appearance of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, an application was filed to restore the suit in I.A.No.853 of 2011. Pending this application, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had passed away and therefore, an application was filed in I.A.No.264 of 2012 to implead the legal representatives of the first defendant. The said application was allowed on 26.09.2012. After the cause title was amended and parties were brought on record, an application to restore the suit ie., I.A.No.853 of 2011 was taken on file. This application was dismissed for default again on 21.04.2016. In order to restore I.A.No.853 of 2011 ie., the petition filed to restore the suit which has been dismissed for default, an application was filed in I.A.No.106 of 2011. That application also came to be dismissed by the impugned order, against which the present revision.

¶25

The learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur dismissed the application

¶26

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

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

C.R.P.No.981 of 2022

¶29

on the ground that at the time of filing I.A.No.853 of 2011 as well as I.A.No.106 of 2017, the plaintiff had cited the same reason viz., he was suffering from Jaundice. It is pertinent to point out here that, though the respondents had received the notice in the application, they had remained exparte. The Court below should have seen only the reason that had been given by the plaintiff on its face value. There is no presumption that a person cannot get Jaundice twice in his life. In other words, the fact that he had got Jaundice previously does not mean that he could not have fallen sick with Jaundice again. A plaintiff cannot gain by dragging on the suit. From the narration of the aforesaid facts it is seen that the plaintiff has been repeatedly knocking the doors of the Court for the purpose of agitating his rights in the suit. It is unfortunate that the defendants 1, 4, 5 and 7 had died pending the suit, which constrained him to take out one application after another.

¶30

For the purpose of restoration of a suit or application, the relevant provision is Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. Under Order IX Rule 9, in order to get a suit or application restored on to the file, the plaintiff would have to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The fact that the plaintiff had pleaded medical illness, according to me, is a sufficient cause.

¶31

In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur in I.A.No.106 of 2017 in O.S.No.249 of 2008 dated 06.04.2019 is set aside. I.A.No.106 of 2017 stands restored and the learned

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

C.R.P.No.981 of 2022

¶35

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

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

C.R.P.No.981 of 2022

¶38

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶39

KST

¶40

I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur is directed to take up I.A.No.853 of 2011 and pass orders on the same on or before 31.07.2024.

¶41

With the above direction, the C.R.P is allowed. No costs. Consequently,

¶42

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

25.04.2024

¶44

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶45

KST

¶46

¶47

The I Additional District Judge Tiruvallur.

¶48

C.R.P. No.981 of 2022

¶49

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

¶50

Page 5 of 5

Deenadayalu v. Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deenadayalu v. Ravichandran

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

Indian Major Ports and Dock Officers Association Vs T.K.Ramachandran, I.A.S.

J.Jerlin Vs P.Agassi Prince

Vasantha Vs Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam

Nandhini Vs Anand Kumar

C.Selvaraj Vs C.Navaarasu

M.Pradeeba Vs a.Murali