This court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to quash an appellate court's order rejecting condonation of delay in filing appeal. The court held that a judgment copy suffices for appeal and the petitioner's conduct was unreasonable.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.
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.2635 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.12116 of 2017
Karuppusamy ... Petitioner / Appellant
Vs
1.Anitha 2.Sellathal ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.30 of 2014 in A.S.S.R.No.1013 / 30.01.2014 on the file of Principal District Court, Karur, dated 02.11.2016 and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Gokulraj For R1 : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R2 : No appearance
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.30 of 2014 in A.S.S.R.No.1013 / 30.01.2014 on the file of Principal District Court, Karur, dated 02.11.2016 and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
2/6
C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017
11.08.2011. But his name was omitted to mention in the decree. So he
has not filed the appeal in time. He was informed that only after carrying out the correction by amendment, appeal could be preferred. His advocate told that the respondent has filed a memo with a copy of the decree for amendment and thereafter he received notice without any petition. So he contacted his advocate and informed the same. But later it came to know that without giving notice to him, the amendment petition filed by the respondent was allowed. Since the decree was not amended, he was unable to file the appeal in time and a delay of 888 days has occurred.
3/6
C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017
06.03.2013. Only after that he received a certified copy of the decree on
28.11.2013. Even thereafter also, there is a delay and the appeal was preferred only on 30.01.2014. So the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner is not acceptable.
only after getting a notice in the final decree application, the revision petitioner applied for copy application and received the decree. Now commission report is filed in the final decree application. At this stage, this petition is filed to drag on the final decree proceedings.
4/6
C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017
the judgment is enough for filing the appeal. Eventhough there is a mistake on the part of the trial Court in drafting the decree properly, but as mentioned above only after getting the notice in the final decree proceedings, it appears that the revision petitioner took steps to file the appeal. So this itself indicates that he wants to drag on the matter to protract the final decree proceedings. Now the Commissioner report is also filed. There is no reason to interfere with the order of the appellate Court made in I.A.No.30 of 2014 in A.S.S.R.No.1013 / 30.01.2014 on the file of Principal District Court, Karur, dated 02.11.2016. The revision petitioner may participate in the final decree proceeding and may work out his relief.
Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
19.11.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No pnn
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
To
1.The Principal District Court, Karur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)No.2635 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.12116 of 2017
19.11.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 888 days in filing appeal due to omission of petitioner's name in decree is sustainable.
Whether mistake by trial court in drafting decree is a sufficient ground to interfere with appellate court's order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karuppusamy
Anitha
Sellathal
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
