Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Fathima Beevi (Died) on 15 December, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4368 of 2020
and
Caveat No.815 of 2020
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Paramakudi. .. Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants
-vs-
1.Fathima Beevi (Died)
2.Kajamohaideen
3.Nainamohammed
4.Sahulhameed
5.The Commissioner,
Paramakudi Town Panchayat,
Paramakudi.
6.Ramu (Died)
7.Muthandi (Died)
8.Balu
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
9.Mani
10.Shanmugavelu (Died)
11.Matharbeevi
12.Jainabeevi
13.Kathijabeevi
14.Bakeer Mohammed
15.Ibrahim Ali
16.Habiba Banu
17.Najeembanu
18.Mohaideen Fathima
19.Shek Abdullah @ Shek Mohammed
20.Abubacker
21.Ameer Abdulrahman .. Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set
aside the judgment and decree made in I.A.No.84 of 2018 dated
03.06.2020 in UF A.S.---- of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge,
Paramakudi against O.S.No.101 of 2005 dated 29.11.2005.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.GA.Natraj,
Government Advocate
For RR3, 11 to 18 & 21 : Mr.J.Barathan
for Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam
******
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants 1
and 2 against the order, dated 03.06.2020 passed in I.A.No.84 of 2018 in
UF AS No.---- of 2018 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
Paramakudi, which was filed to condone the delay of 4496 days in filing
the appeal challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.101 of 2005,
dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi.
The brief facts, necessary to dispose of this petition, are as
follows:-
2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.101
of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakudi to declare their
right to the suit property and consequently, restrain the defendants from
interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property.
2.1. The revision petitions were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2
therein and after contest, the suit was decreed on 29.11.2005.
Challenging the said judgment and decree, the revision petitioners had
filed the first appeal on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi,
however with a delay of 4496 days.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
2.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the
delay, the revision petitioners have admitted that the certified copies have
been received long back from the District Court. However, the Suit
Clerk of the Paramakudi Taluk Office has misplaced the judgment and
decree and consequently, the matter was not brought to the knowledge of
the Tahsildar, Paramakudi. Further, the Tahsildar was being transferred
every year and therefore, on account of the above factors, the appeal
could not be filed in time. In fact, only when the notice in the execution
proceedings had been received from the Court, the revision petitioners
had come to know about the judgment and the fact that the appeal had
not been filed in time. Immediately, certified copies were applied for
from the District Court and the same was obtained on 19.04.2018, but the
appeal should have been filed within 29.12.2005. That apart, the delay
was also caused on account of the fact that the revision petitioners were
not able to get in touch with their Government Pleader in the said appeal.
In the process, the delay had occurred.
2.3. A very detailed counter has been filed by respondents 3 and
11 to 21 in which they have denied the allegations made in the affidavit
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
filed in support of the application and have set out how the allegation
contained in the affidavit does not portray the true facts.
3. It is the case of respondents that earlier, a suit in O.S.No.64
of 1984 had been filed by respondents 1 to 4 against the District
Collector, Ramanathapuram; Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk;
Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality; and a few other private parties
for a declaration of their title on the file of the Sub Court,
Ramanathapuram. On 26.08.1987, the suit was decreed and the same
was challenged in appeal by the petitioners herein in A.S.No.1044 of
1989 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram. The
appeal was allowed and consequently, the 1st respondent and her son had
filed L.P.A.No.129 of 2001 before this Court and this Court was pleased
to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District
Court by its judgment and decree dated 29.03.2001 and the matter was
remitted back to the trial court with a direction to frame additional issues
and grant liberty to file further evidence. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.
64 of 1984 was transferred from the file of the Subordinate Court,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
Ramanathapuram to the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, on account
of the change in pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. This suit was
renumbered as O.S.No.101 of 2005. This suit was decreed on
29.11.2005 and from 29.11.2005 to 20.04.2018, the respondents have
been filing writ petitions one after the other before this Court and in each
of these proceedings, reference has been made to the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.101 of 2005. Though the petitioners have been
contesting all these applications and are aware of the judgment and
decree dated 29.11.2005 in O.S.No.101 of 2005, they have not chosen to
file an appeal. Therefore, the averments contained in the affidavit filed
in support of the application were totally contrary to the records available
with the revision petitioners themselves. The delay of 12½ years has not
been explained.
4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi, on a detailed
consideration of the arguments and the records and also perusing the
various judgments cited on either side, ultimately came to the conclusion
that the revision petitioners have been highly negligent and have not
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
explained the delay. Consequently, the application came to be dismissed.
Challenging the said order, the revision petitioners are before this Court.
5. Mr.N.G.A.Natraj, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the petitioners would submit that the delay has occurred only on
account of the departmental bottlenecks and this Court should take into
account the fact that the petitioners are the Government and a certain
amount of relaxation should be given while considering such application
filed on the side of the Government. Another factor to be taken note of is
in the earlier rounds, the appeal filed by the revision petitioners had been
allowed and it was only in the LPA, the matter had been remitted back.
He would therefore, submit that this Court should take a holistic view
taking into account the fact that the departmental glitches are inevitable
while running a Government.
6. Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for respondents 3, 11 to 18
and 21 would submit that the very basis on which the affidavit for
condoning the delay has been filed is that the revision petitioners had
come to know about the judgment only when they have received the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
notice in the execution proceedings. This statement, on the face of the
record, is absolutely false. In the counter filed by respondents 3 and 11 to
21 in the impugned application, they have in a very great detail set out
the proceedings between the parties after the judgment in the suit in
O.S.No.105 of 2005 on 29.11.2005. There was initiation of proceedings
under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the 2 nd petitioner
herein on 04.11.2017 against the 3rd respondent followed by many other
proceedings. In every one of these proceedings, the respondents have
been quoting the judgment and decree in their favour. In fact, to a notice
dated 29.11.2013, by the Junior Engineer, Parthibanur Cliff Dam, the
respondents have filed a counter enclosing the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.105 of 2005. This is the first of the proceedings that has taken
place post the judgment and decree. Despite being put on notice, even as
early as on 16.12.2013, about the judgment and decree, the petitioners
herein have not cared to file the appeal and further suppressing all these
facts, an affidavit has been filed stating that the revision petitioners had
come to know about the judgment and decree only when notice in the
Execution Proceedings had been filed.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
7. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application
would show that the order copy had been immediately received by the
revision petitioners and it is their case that this judgment and decree had
been misplaced. Thereafter, they have applied for a fresh copy of the
judgment and decree in the year 2018 and preferred this appeal.
Therefore, it is clear that the revision petitioners have not come before
this Court with the true facts and have made allegations suppressing the
fact that there has been several correspondence between the revision
petitioners and respondents from the date of the judgment itself.
8. In the result, this Court is of the opinion that the revision
petitioners have not given sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay.
Therefore, the order dated 03.06.2020 made in I.A.No.84 of 2018 is
confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.12.2021
abr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Sub Court, Paramakudi.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.660 of 2020
Dated: 15.12.2021
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
