Allowed

S.T.Palraj v. Elumalai

Madras HC9 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petitions against dismissal of petitions condoning a 364-day delay and setting aside default dismissal of an appeal in a specific performance suit. The court allowed both revisions, restored the appeal, and gave the appellant another opportunity after costs were paid.

What did the court decide?

Both CRPs allowed; appellate Court's orders in I.A.Nos.147/2020 and 139/2021 set aside; appeal revived; Rs.2,500 costs paid per petition; no costs in court

S.T.Palraj Vs Elumalai — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶7

S.T.Palraj ... Petitioner / Appellant in both CRPs

¶8

¶9

Elumalai ... Respondent / Respondent

¶10

in both CRPs

¶11

Prayer in C.R.P(MD)No.661 of 2024 : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.02.2023 made in I.A.No.147 of 2020 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and allowed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶12

Prayer in C.R.P(MD)No.662 of 2024 : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2023 made in I.A.No.139 of 2021 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and allowed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Rajasekaran

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balakrishnan

¶18

(in both CRPs)

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the fair and

¶21

decreetal order dated 29.02.2023 made in I.A.No.147 of 2020 and the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2023 made in I.A.No.139 of 2021 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and allowed this Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

A suit in O.S.No.413 of 2010 was filed by the revision petitioner herein against the respondent, seeking the relief of specific performance and for cost. That was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, A.S.No.13 of 2018 was preferred by the plaintiff before the appellate Court namely Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai and that came to be dismissed for default. To set aside the above said dismissal order, there is a delay of 364 days. Therefore, petitions were filed to condone the delay and to set aside the order, were filed. That came to be dismissed by

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶26

preferred.

¶27

the appellate Court. Against which this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

¶28

As mentioned above, the suit is one for specific performance and an appeal was also filed in time. Reason for the non appearance of the appellant and his counsel before the appellate Court was stating he due to his illness, after that he suffered loss in his business and he went to depression. Later the Covid-19 Pandemic period intervened. Only thereafter, he approached the advocate.

¶29

That was resisted by the respondent by filing counter and the appellate Court dismissed the petitions stating that the reason assigned by the revision petitioner is not supported by any document, which is also vague and unacceptable. Against which these Civil Revision Petitions are preferred.

¶30

Since the main suit is one for specific performance and also suffered a dismissal at the hands of the trial Court, there is no point or reason for the revision petitioner to drag on the proceedings at the

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶34

appellate stage.

¶35

Therefore, I am of the considered view that one more

¶36

opportunity may be given to the appellant to argue the matter. For the inconvenience caused to the respondent, the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) in both petitions, on or before 09.12.2024. Since the order of this Court was complied by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow these Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the

¶38

fair and decreetal order dated 29.02.2023 made in I.A.No.147 of 2020 and the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2023 made in I.A.No.139 of 2021 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, are set aside. No costs.

¶39

NCC :Yes/No 09.12.2024 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No pnn

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶43

¶44

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.

¶45

2.The Section Officer, VR Section,

¶46

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶50

G.ILANGOVAN, J.

¶51

pnn

¶52

ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)Nos.661 and 662 of 2024

¶53

09.12.2024

¶54

6/6

¶55

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

S.T.Palraj v. Elumalai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.T.Palraj v. Elumalai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivavel Murugan, Vs Kamatchiammal

Gnanaselvam Vs M/S.Sakthi Finance Limited

Arumugam, Vs Arumugam (Died), 1. Lakshmi

L.Suresh Vs Raja(Died)

L.Shanmugakani, Vs S.Ramasamy

Suruliammal (Died) Vs Murugesan