Madras High Court
Muhammed Ali Jinna vs State Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2021
CRP (MD) No. 1619 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :02.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1619 of 2014
Muhammed Ali Jinna ... Petitioner
-vs-
State Government of Tamil Nadu
Through its District Collector
Kokkirakulam
Tirunelveli ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.08.2012made in I.A.
No.8 of 2011 in A.S.No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge,
Ambasamudram and allow the revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan
For Respondent : Mr.R. Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (MD) No. 1619 of 2014
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
08.08.2012 made in I.A. No.8 of 2011 in A.S.No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Sub
Ordinate Judge, Ambasamudram dismissing the petition to condone the delay of
2509 days in filing the petition to restore the appeal which was dismissed for
default on 24.08.2004.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
the plaintiff in O.S.No.148 of 1992, seeking to pass a decree for a sum of
Rs.20,829/- with future interest @ 12% per annum till the date of realization
towards damage. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2002
dismissed the suit. Against the dismissal of the suit the petitioner had filed appeal
in A.S.No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram on
13.12.2002. The petitioner is working as Physical Education teacher in a private
school in Coimbatore and that due to his job he was at Coimbatore and he had
been contacting his counsel through phone. Whileso, the appeal has been listed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (MD) No. 1619 of 2014
for hearing on 24.08.2004 and that since he was in Coimbatore, he had not
informed his counsel and due to his employment he was unable to contact his
counsel. Meanwhile the case had been taken for hearing and since his advocate
was not able to contact him it was dismissed for default on 24.08.2004. Thereafter
the petitioner was transferred to some other place and so that he was unable to
contact his counsel . The petitioner ought to have filed a petition for restoration
within 30 days, whereas due to his pre- occupation he was not able to contact his
counsel , thereby the petition to restore the appeal was filed on 07.02.2011 with a
delay of 2627 days. He would further submit that the petitioner had sufficient
cause, whereas the appellate court had dismissed the petition to condone the
delay in filing a petition to restore the appeal.
3. Mr. R.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
Government vehemently opposed the petition stating that the petitioner had been
lethargic. Finding that the affidavit filed by the petitioner was vague and the
reasons given by him was not satisfactory, the appellate Court had rightly
dismissed the same and hence he seeks dismissal of the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (MD) No. 1619 of 2014
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides and perusal the
materials on record.
5. The appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2003 had been listed for hearing on
24.08.2004. On 24.08.2004, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared and
hence, the appeal was dismissed for default and the petition for restoration ought
to have been filed within a period of 30 days, whereas it has been filed with a
delay of 2509 days. The reasons stated by the petitioner that there was mis-
communication between him and his counsel, due to his transfer and thereby he
was unable to contact the counsel is not satisfactory. In view of the above, this
Court finds that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly the
impugned order passed in I.A. No.8 of 2011 in A.S.No.17 of 2003 on the file of
the Sub Ordinate Judge, Ambasamudram is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (MD) No. 1619 of 2014
6.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
02.08.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To:
1.The District Collector
Kokkirakulam
Tirunelveli
2. The Sub Ordinate Judge, Ambasamudram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (MD) No. 1619 of 2014
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
aav
C.R.P.(MD) No.1619 of 2014
02.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
