The revision petitioner sought to set aside a default dismissal order of the trial court, relying on mistake of counsel as grounds for delay. The High Court allowed the petition, finding the reasons genuine, and directed payment of costs to the respondents.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, with a direction to pay Rs.5,000 as cost to the respondents.
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(MD)No.1678 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
1.Devasahaya Mani
2.Palraj ... Petitioners / Plaintiffs
1.George
2.Thomas ... Respondents / Defendants
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.234 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
For Respondent : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No. 234 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.
i) The earlier counsel Mr.Joseph Raj Jegan did not appear before the Court when the matter was called. So it was dismissed for default on 04.06.2018. On 03.11.2018, the revision petitioner approached the advocate and only at that time, it was brought to his notice that the suit
2/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
was dismissed for default on 04.06.2018. So there is a delay of 372 days
in preferring the petition. That was resisted by the respondent herein stating that no proper reason was assigned by the revision petitioner. No immediate step was taken to restore the suit. After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the petition by making an observation that between 27.06.2016 and 04.06.2018, for about 2 years, the matter was periodically adjourned. It was listed for final trial in the list on 04.06.2018. The matter was passed over till 03.16 p.m. Even at that time, there was no representation by the plaintiffs. By observing the record of proceedings, it went on to held that no proper reason is assigned by the plaintiffs and making complaint against the advocate is not permissible. Against which this revision petition is preferred.
3/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
given to him to prosecute the matter to its logical conclusion. Since he is
the plaintiff there is no necessity for him to drag on the proceedings.
4/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
this revision petition is liable to be allowed, ofcourse, by imposing cost
to compensate the respondents for the inconvenience caused to them.
(Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the respondents for the inconvenience caused to him, on or before 11.12.2024.
allowed.
22.11.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
To
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)No.1678 of 2022
22.11.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay in filing Section 5 petition to set aside default dismissal order can be condoned given the mistake of counsel.
Whether the due diligence requirement justifies condoning the delay in the Revision Petition.
Whether the Revision Petition should be allowed with the imposition of costs.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Duraisamy Vs Vasantha and anotherRelied on¶32
2023 (1) CTC 444
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devasahaya Mani and another
George and another
G. ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
