The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The court held that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause or evidence for the inordinate delay.
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.2649 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.12.2023
Pronounced on : 26.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.13812 of 2023
Vs.
The Chief Manager State Bank of India Aranthangi Branch Aranthangi & Post Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent/ Respondent/ Plaintiff
Chinthamani (Died)
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 02.01.2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
made in I.A.No.526 of 2022 in O.S.No.208 of 2017 on the file of Sub Court, Aranthani and allow the above civil revision petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.Prasanna
For Respondent : Mr.G.Radhakrishnan
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.526 of 2022 in O.S.No.208 of 2017 dated 02.01.2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aranthangi, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
objections. During enquiry, the respondent/plaintiff as well as the revision petitioners/defendants have adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2023 dismissing the application. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the defendants have preferred the present revision.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
that the revision petitioners/defendants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if the delay is not condoned.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
final decree, that the revision petitioners/defendants, after the receipt of notice in the final decree petition, have entered into appearance and filed their counter statement on 19.04.2021 and that thereafter the present application to condone the delay of 1078 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. came to be filed.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
jaundice, they have not elaborated anything further. As already pointed out, the revision petitioners/defendants have not produced any evidence to substantiate their case. Admittedly, the revision petitioners/defendants have not produced any medical records or other materials to show that the first revision petitioner/first defendant was suffering from health issues and was taking treatment therefor.
“4.The law of limitation is substantive law. Condonation of delay is an exception. The Courts are bound to exercise discretionary power judiciously and by recording reasons. The Courts are bound to follow the law of limitation in all circumstances and only on exceptional circumstances, wherever the reasons are found genuine, then only the Courts can condone the delay and not otherwise. Mechanical
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
approach in condonation of huge delay is unacceptable. In such an event, the Courts are diluting the law of limitation, which is impermissible. The power of discretion is to be exercised by recording reasons and it is not as if the Courts can condone the huge delay without any genuine reasons.
7. ....
16. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed in jettison the substantial law of limitation. The law of limitation is substantial and therefore the principles laid down is to be scrupulously followed while condoning the delay under the law of limitation. The limitation has got a specific purpose and object and more specifically to avoid prejudice to the respective parties. In the event of prolongation or protraction of the litigation, undoubtedly and for an unspecified period when the specific law of limitation has got a specific purpose and object, then the power of discretion is to be exercised cautiously. Power of discretion cannot be exercised in the absence of any valid reason. In other words, powers can be exercised for the purpose of passing orders only by recording reasons
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
which must be candid and convincing and must be passed on certain sound legal principles. Therefore, recording of reasons for exercising discretionary powers is one of the elementary principles of law. In the event of exercising discretionary powers without recording reasons, undoubtedly the same would cause not only prejudice and will set a bad principle and therefore, the Courts must be cautious while exercising power of discretion more specifically in such matters where the law of Limitation is substantial.”
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
26.02.2024
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm
To
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.2649 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.13812 of 2023
Dated : 26.02.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the subordinate court rightly dismissed the application for condonation of 1078 days delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.Natarajan Vs. Srivari Housing and Construction Ltd. and othersRelied on¶38
2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2355 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Ulagammal
R.Ramupillai
The Chief Manager State Bank of India Aranthangi Branch
K.Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
