Plaintiff challenged the trial court's refusal to condone 1719 days' delay in restoring her permanent injunction suit dismissed for default. The High Court found her reasons—advocate's death and husband's illness—unsupported by particulars or evidence and dismissed the revision petition.
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.813 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
Kanimozhi ... Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff
Vs
1.Thangeswaran 2.Shanmugadasa @ Vivekanandan ... Respondents / Defendants
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order dated 13.07.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.212 of 2012 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, as illegal by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vidya
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 13.07.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.212 of 2012 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Laslgudi, as illegal
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
filed by the revision petitioner herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for costs against the respondent. The revision petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court when the matter was called for trial. So it was dismissed for default on 11.11.2014. To set aside the dismissal order, a petition was filed to condone the delay of 1719 days. That petition was dismissed against which this Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the plaintiff / petitioner.
that he entrusted the matter to one Muruganathan who was a practicing advocate. He informed the revision petitioner that she can appear before the Court on receiving the intimation from him. In the meantime, the husband was affected by knee pain and other ailments, so was taken to various places like Kerala, Tirupur and Pudukottai for treatment. But her husband could not recover from the illness. The Advocate Muruganantham died in a road accident. So they were taken care of the family of Muruganathan so that could not concentrate on the suit. After recovery from the illness, she contacted Lalgudi Court in June, 2019. At
2/6
C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
that time they came to know that one Godhandaraman, Advocate was engaged by Muruganantham. Only at that time, they came to know that the order of dismissal. Records were traced from the advocate office after much efforts. Hence there is a delay of 1719 days in filing the restoration application.
3/6
C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
states that taking advantage of the dismissal order, the respondents are even now trying to make disturbance. If any, new fresh cause of action has arisen, there can be no bar for the revision petitioner to file a suit for permanent injunction. That cannot be a reason for condoning the delay. Moreover, as mentioned above, the reason assigned by the revision petitioner is not supported by the evidence. Mere bald reasons are stated. Unless proper reasons are assigned, the petition could not have been allowed by the trial Court. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 13.07.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.212 of 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
05.12.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No pnn
4/6
C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
To
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)No.813 of 2024
05.12.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused to condone a 1719-day delay in filing an application to restore a suit dismissed for default?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanimozhi
Thangeswaran
Shanmugadasa @ Vivekanandan
G.Ilangovan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
