Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By vs M.K.M.Ahmed Kabir Maraicar on 21 April, 2021
Review Application No.103 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Review Application No.103 of 2020
against
C.M.P.No.882 of 2020
and
CMP No.12400 of 2020
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Tahsildar,
Nagapattinam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. ... Review Petitioners
-Vs.-
M.K.M.Ahmed Kabir Maraicar ... Respondent
Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1
r/w Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated
14.09.2020 made in C.M.P.No.882 of 2020 in S.A.Sr.No.95002 of
2019.
For Review Petitioners : Mr.Y.T.Aravind Gosh,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.T.Muruganandam
Page No.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.103 of 2020
ORDER
The review is sought for of the order dated 14.09.2020 made in
C.M.P.No.882 of 2020 refusing to condone the delay of 1121 days in
filing the appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.11 of 2014
on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam.
2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the application
for condonation of delay, the delay was caused due to the assembly
election which took place during May 2016 and cyclone “Nada” which
made a land fall in Nagapattinam during December 2016. I had refused
to accept the said reasons as sufficient cause for condonation of delay,
since I found from the records that the copy application for certified
copies of the judgment and decree of the appellate court was made only
on 05.02.2019 i.e., nearly after a delay of 1054 days. The reasons
attributed for the delay did not, in my considered opinion, constitute
sufficient cause, because the filing of copy application and obtaining of
certified copies are purely the duties of the Government Pleader's office
and not the Tahsildar office.
Page No.2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.103 of 2020
3. In this Review Application, it is now claimed that the copy
application was in fact made as early as on 24.05.2017 in C.A.No.1309
of 2017 and the copies were in fact made available to the learned
Government Pleader on 29.05.2017. The copies that were forwarded by
the Government Pleader to the Office of Tahsildar, Nagapattinam were
actually mis-placed in some other file. Therefore, fresh copy
application seems to have been made in the year 2019 and the Second
Appeal was filed along with the copies obtained in the year 2019.
Terming this as Discovery of new fact which was not within the
knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing of the review and the
same would constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1
Sub-Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Government
Pleader would seek indulgence of this court to review the order.
4. Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the fact that the copy
application was filed in the year 2017 and the copy of the judgment
Page No.3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.103 of 2020
was obtained even if true, will still not afford a reason or sufficient
cause for delay, since the copy application was made after a delay of an
year from the date of the judgment. He would also contend that the said
fact would not come within the discovery of important material which
was not within the knowledge of the petitioner.
5. I have considered the rival submissions.
6. The copy of the judgment that was obtained in the year 2017
has been produced. It is seen therefrom that the copy application was
made on 24.05.2017 and the same was issued on 29.05.2017. It is now
claimed that the said copy was mis-placed in some other file and
therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time on the basis of the said
copy. Thereafter, only in the year 2019, fresh copy application was
made and copy was obtained from the court. This reason, in my
considered opinion, amounts to discovery of material fact which was
not within the knowledge of the applicants.
Page No.4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.103 of 2020
7. It is seen from the affidavits filed in support of the application
for condonation of delay and the review petition, that the Nagapattinam
District was affected by cyclone “Nada”, which made a land fall in the
year December 2016 and caused vast damage. Subsequently, also in the
year 2017 and 2019 there were natural disasters like Gaja Cyclone.
Therefore there is a possibility of the petitioner viz., Tahsildar,
Nagapattinam losing track of the appeal.
8. This court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly
held that the Court must be liberal in condonation of delay, unless it
could be stated that the delay is actuated with malafide or with a view
to make financial gain. It is not the case here. Hence, this review
application is allowed and the order dated 14.09.2020 is recalled.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.04.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
dsa/kkn
Page No.5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Review Application No.103 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
dsa/kkn
Review Application No.103 of 2020
against
C.M.P.No.882 of 2020
and
CMP No.12400 of 2020
21.04.2021
Page No.6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
