Chinnasamy vs Rajendiran

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15246 Mad
Judgement Date : 13 September, 2022

Madras High Court
Chinnasamy vs Rajendiran on 13 September, 2022
                                                                                 C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 13.09.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
                                                    C.R.P.1077 of 2020
                     Chinnasamy                                              ...Petitioner
                                                           Vs.

                     Rajendiran                                              ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC., against
                     the fair and decreetal order dated 26.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019
                     in A.S.No.Nil of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur.


                                   For Petitioner          : Mr.H.Manojin
                                   For Respondent          : Ms.Elizabeth Ravi


                                                         ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.Nil of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur. Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

2.The revision petitioner is the appellant in unnumbered AS of the year 2019 before the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District. Along with the said appeal, he filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal.

3.Opposing the same, the respondent herein, has filed a counter.

4.After full contest, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, dismissed the application on the ground that the averments in the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner in support of the petition, are vague and that the reason for not filing the appeal within time cannot also be accepted.

Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

5.In the instant case, the revision petitioner has filed the appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, with delay of 12 days. His specific contention in the affidavit is that he was indisposed and therefore, he could not meet his counsel to file an appeal in time as against the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. However, according to the First Appellate Court, the reasons are bald and vague. The First Appellate Court should have taken into consideration the number of days of delay in filing the appeal. In the instant case, it is hardly 12 days and the petitioner has stated that he was indisposed and the delay is not intentional. In such circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought to have approached the issue in a pragmatic manner in the interest of justice.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent contended that each day's delay has not been explained by the revision petitioner. It is settled that every day's delay does not require to be explained and the Courts Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020 should always resort to pedantic approach and refusing to condone the delay, will result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold and cause of justice being defeated. In the instant case, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and the suit was decreed with costs.

7.In the said circumstances, the defendant should have been given opportunity to file an appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur on 14.03.2019. By just, by dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the first Appellate Court had completely closed the doors to the defendant. Moreover, a bare perusal of the decree and judgment also shows that they are acceptable points in the appeal.

8.In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances, the order passed by the First Appellate Court, Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, is liable to be set aside. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

9.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the First Appellate Court/Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, is directed to number the appeal filed by the defendant and dispose of the case as early as possible. No costs.

13.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020 R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl To

1.The Subordinate Court, Tirupattur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

C.R.P.1077 of 2020 13.09.2022 Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis