Dismissed¶30

K.Ramu v. Evergreen Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC8 Jan 2025CRP/1931/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure; revision against dismissal of delay-condonation application; ex parte decree 08.01.2021; recovery of advance under sale agreement 25.07.2011; execution proceedings 01.06.2022; delay figures 586/817/244 days; insufficient cause; sister-in-law illness ('arthotedis') excuse rejected as improbable and unsupported; lethargic conduct of petitioner; Madras High Court CRP.No.1931 of 2024; CMP.No.10209 of 2024; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; District Judge of the Nilgris at Udhagamandalam; I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.C.F.R.No.3665 of 2023; Evergreen Industries Pvt Ltd; advocates L.Mouli and M.Rajasekhar.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.10209 of 2024) was closed. ¶30

K.Ramu Vs Evergreen Industries Pvt. Ltd. — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.10209 of 2024) was closed.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the decree dated 08.01.2021 ought to be condoned, i.e., whether the Trial Court's rejection of the condonation application (finding 586 days of delay) should be set aside and the petitioner given a liberal approach to contest the matter on merits. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Standard applied: where the reasons assigned by parties are bonafide and prevented their appearance before the Court, the Court would normally lean in favour of the parties participating in the trial; but where the reasons are found not bonafide and made only to protract the proceedings, even a very small delay will not earn the litigant that benefit.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

At every stage the revision petitioner was lethargic and was not in a position to explain the reasons for the delay satisfactorily.

¶25

Key takeaways

The affidavit explanation that the petitioner resided in Coimbatore for years together because his sister-in-law was taking treatment for 'arthotedis' is highly improbable, arthritis ('Arthotedis') not being a serious ailment warranting years of hospitalisation.ratio¶29
No materials whatsoever were placed before the Trial Court to show that the petitioner's sister-in-law underwent the claimed treatment.ratio¶29
The Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction properly and had analysed the conduct of the parties; the revision lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J., 08.01.2025) dismissed CRP.No.1931 of 2024 filed under Section 115 CPC by K.Ramu and two others against the fair and final order dated 13.02.2024 of the District Judge of the Nilgris at Udhagamandalam in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.C.F.R.No.3665 of 2023, which had rejected condonation of a 586-day delay in appealing the ex parte decree dated 08.01.2021 in a suit by Evergreen Industries Pvt Ltd for recovery of advance paid under a sale agreement dated 25.07.2011. The petitioner attributed the delay to his sister-in-law's 'arthotedis' (arthritis) treatment in Coimbatore from 01.01.2021 to 01.07.2022; execution proceedings had begun on 01.06.2022, and the condonation application filed on 14.07.2023 was returned and re-presented only on 14.09.2023 after a further 244-day gap. Holding the petitioner lethargic at every stage, the illness plea highly improbable and wholly unsupported by materials, and the Trial Court's analysis of the parties' conduct proper, the Court dismissed the revision with no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

CRP.No.1931 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 08.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP.No.1931 of 2024 and CMP.No.10209 of 2024

¶7

1.K.Ramu 2.K.Mukunthan 3.K.Rangaraj ... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Evergreen Industries Pvt Ltd Represented by its Manager Shri Anupam Mishra, S/o. P.N.Mishra ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and final order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge of the Nilgris at Udhagamandalam in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.C.F.R.No.3665 of 2023.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli For respondent : Mr.M.Rajasekhar

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Challenging the impugned order rejecting the application filed to condone

¶14

the delay of 586 days in filing the appeal, the present revision has been filed.

¶15

Page 1 / 6

¶16

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

¶17

CRP.No.1931 of 2024

¶18

The suit has been originally filed for recovery of advance amount paid by the respondent in agreement of sale dated 25.07.2011. The suit was decreed on 08.01.2021. To set aside the said decree and judgment, application has been taken out by the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 817 days in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned in this application is that since his sister in law was suffering from arthotedis ailment, she was admitted in the hospital in Coimbatore for medical treatment from 01.01.2021 to 01.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner could not meet his advocate to file the appeal in time. The respondent opposed that application contending that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Trial Court, considering the conduct of the parties held that sufficient reasons has not been shown to condone the delay and dismissed the application. Hence, this order.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner sought to condone the delay of 817 days, the Trial Court itself found that there is 586 days, hence, seeks liberal approach by this Court to contest the matter on merits. Hence, seeks for allowing this revision

¶20

Page 2 / 6

¶21

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

¶22

CRP.No.1931 of 2024

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

The suit is filed for recovery of advance amount paid towards the sale agreement entered between the parties. Payment of advance amount and agreement is not disputed. Now, on the question of condoning the delay, normally, when the Court finds that reasons assigned by the parties are bonafide which prevented the parties from appearing before the Court, the Court would normally lean in favour of the parties to participate in the trial. When the reasons assigned are found not bonafide and made only in order to protract the proceedings, even the length of delay is very small, the Court will not extend such benefit to the litigant.

¶25

On perusal of the entire materials, the fact remains that after obtaining the exparte decree on 08.01.2021, the execution proceedings were initiated on 01.06.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the Execution Court and filed a counter. Thereafter, the impugned application has been filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. That application has been filed on 14.07.2023 and the application was returned for various reasons and then represented with a delay of 244 days only on 14.09.2023. In every stage, the revision petitioner was lethargic

¶26

Page 3 / 6

¶27

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

¶28

CRP.No.1931 of 2024

¶29

and not in a position to explain the reasons satisfactorily. The reasons assigned in the affidavit that his sister in law suffering from arthotedis ailment taking treatment, therefore, the was residing in Coimbatore is also highly improbable. Arthotedis is not a serious one and therefore, the contention that he was all along in the hospital in Coimbatore for years together is highly improbable. Further, there is no materials whatsoever placed before the Trial Court to show that his sister in law has undergone the treatment.

¶30

Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction properly and had analysed the conduct of the parties. Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this revision and accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶31

08.01.2025

¶32

Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order dhk

¶33

Page 4 / 6

¶34

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

¶35

CRP.No.1931 of 2024

¶36

To,