Revision against condonation of 464-day delay by Forest Department in filing appeal against decree in the petitioner's favour. The High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the appellate court's exercise of discretion 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.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD).No.12700 of 2022
Ponnudurai
... Petitioner/Respondent/
Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by
Sub Court, Ambasamudram in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in unnumbered
A.S.No.... of 2019, dated 13.07.2022 and set aside the same as erroneous
and unsustainable.
1/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed
by Sub Court, Ambasamudram in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in unnumbered A.S.No.... of 2019, dated 13.07.2022.
2.The facts in brief:
Suit in O.S.No.189 of 2015 was filed by this revision petitioner seeking the relief of declaration that the suit property absolutely belongs to him and for permanent injunction, cost. Suit was decided against the respondent herein. Against which they intended to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. In preferring the appeal there is a delay of 464 days. To condone the delay, I.A.No.2 of 2019 was filed before the appellate Court. That came to be allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.4,000/-, within a stipulated time. Against which this revision is preferred.
2/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
3.The grounds upon which this revision is preferred that a false affidavit was sworn by the respondent before the appellate Court. The officer, who was holding the post at the time of passing the decree, continued in the same post for about 1 ½ years. Acting upon false affidavit the order was passed by the appellate Court.
4.Reading of the order passed by the appellate Court shows that the petition was filed on the ground that the Ranger, who was working in the particular post, was transferred, later the first respondent came to the post and only at the time, he came to know that the appeal was not preferred within the time stipulated. Because of the administrative reasons, the delay occurred.
5.That was resisted by the revision petitioner stating that he was issued with patta for the property and made arrangements to cultivate the land. At that time, the petition was filed. The very same ground was raised by the revision petitioner before the appellate Court also with regard to the reason assigned by the respondent. On going through the duty Register, the appellate Court has recorded a finding that from
3/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
01.01.2017 to 16.08.2018 one Senthilkumar was the Ranger and on 16.08.2018, one Pandiarajan joined in the post and continued till 31.12.2018. So on that ground the delay was condoned.
6.I absolutely, find no reason to differ from the above said finding.
The appellate Court exercised the discretion in a particular manner and unless the revision petitioner is able to say that that discretion was exercised in improper and illegal manner, the revision will not lie. As mentioned above, no new ground is mentioned to interfere into the order. So the revision fails.
7.Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM
4/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
To
2.The Section Officer, E.R. Section/V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN ,J.
TM
C.R.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022
06.12.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's order condoning a 464-day delay in filing an appeal, on payment of costs, could be interfered with under Section 115 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ponnudurai
The Forest Range Officer, Kuttalam Range Office
The District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli
District Collector, Tirunelveli District
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
