Dismissed

Sivavel Murugan, v. Kamatchiammal

Madras HC6 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/655/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to condone delay and set aside an ex parte decree in a partition suit, the High Court dismissed the petition without addressing merits by granting liberty to appeal against a related order. Time taken for these proceedings was directed to be deducted from the limitation period for the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal against the order in I.A. No.289 of 2018 with deduction of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No costs awarded.

Sivavel Murugan, Vs Kamatchiammal — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2024

¶7

Sivavel Murugan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/2^nd Defendant

Vs.

1.Kamatchiammal

2.Anandanayaki

3.Krishnaveni ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶12

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil

¶13

Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the order passed by learned Principal District Munsif, Vedasandhur in I.A.No.288 of 2018 in O.S.No.188 of 2011 and set aside the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pugalendhi

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Gokulraj

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed

¶18

by learned Principal District Munsif, Vedasandhur, in I.A.No.288 of 2018 in O.S.No.188 of 2011.

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2024

¶22

2.The facts in brief:

¶23

Suit in O.S.No.188 of 2011 was filed by the respondent herein

¶24

seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of ¾ share in the property and for cost. The defendant even though served did not appear. So suit was decided exparte on 26.04.2012. To set aside the exparte decree, there was a delay of 2701 days. To condone the delay I.A.No.288 of 2018 was filed along with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 in I.A.No.289 of 2018. Both applications were heard by the trial Court and came to be dismissed by separate orders. Against the order passed in I.A.No.288 of 2018, this revision is preferred.

¶25

3.Heard both sides.

¶26

4.Without going into merits of the matter the revision can be dismissed with liberty to the revision petitioner to file appeal against the order passed in I.A.No.289 of 2018 before the appellate Court, in view of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of The Koushik Mutually

¶27

Aided Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Ameena Begum and another reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 1056. If any observation or discussion

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2024

¶31

is made with regard to the merits of the matter it may affect or cause prejudice to the parties.

¶32

5.In view of the above said liberty, this revision stands dismissed.

¶33

But at the same time, while calculating the limitation period for filing appeal against the order passed in I.A.No.289 of 2018, time taken by this proceedings may be deducted as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, since the revision petitioner has deposited Rs.6 lakhs in bonafide manner. No costs.

¶34

06.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶35

¶36

1.The Principal District Munsif, Vedasandhur.

¶37

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section,

¶38

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶39

3/4

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2024

¶42

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶43

¶44

C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2024

¶45

06.12.2024

¶46

4/4

¶47

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

Sivavel Murugan, v. Kamatchiammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivavel Murugan, v. Kamatchiammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanimozhi Vs Thangeswaran

Uco Bank, Vs M.Vetriselvi

Manimuthu Vs Ayyammal

Ponnudurai, Vs The Forest Range Officer

N.Lakshmanan Vs Narayanan Chettiar Trust

Gnanaselvam Vs M/S.Sakthi Finance Limited