Madras High Court
N.Suresh vs M.Boominathan on 17 December, 2021
C.R.P.(MD) No.1017 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(MD)No.1017 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.4570 of 2017
N.Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs.
M.Boominathan ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
22.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2016 in A.S.SR No.553 of 2015 on the
file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and allow the present
civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vinoth
For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
The above application is filed by the petitioner challenging the
dismissal of the application to condone the delay of 1282 days in filing
the appeal.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1017 of 2017
2.The petitioner is the idol of Arulmigu Thayumanavaswamy.
The petitioner temple had filed the suit in O.S.No.259 of 2008 directing
the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendant is in unlawful
and occupation of the suit property, which belongs to the petitioner
temple. The respondent is a rank trespasser. The petitioner would
therefore seek a direction to the respondent herein to pay damages from
the year 2000 onwards. The petitioner had issued a legal notice on
15.11.2006 calling upon the respondent to hand over the possession.
However, there was no response and hence, the suit.
3.The respondent herein had filed the written statement inter alia
contending that the suit property does not belong to the petitioner temple.
The property belongs to one Mathrubootha Swamy. The respondent
would further submit that Arulmigu Thayumanavaswamy was never
known as Mathrubootha Swamy. In short the respondent/defendant had
denied the title of the plaintiff temple to the suit property.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1017 of 2017
4.By judgment and decree dated 03.03.2012, the suit was
dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner temple has filed an
appeal. However, while filing the appeal, the delay had crept in and the
petitioner had filed the impugned interlocutory application namely
I.A.No.6 of 2016 to condone the delay. The reason for delay is attributed
to the mixing up of bundles in the advocate's office.
5.The respondent had filed a counter inter alia contending that the
reason for the delay given is absolutely false and concocted one. The
suit itself had been dismissed as early as in 2012 and for over 3½ years
the petitioner temple had kept quite without enquiring with their
advocate and therefore, the reasons stated, appear to be incorrect and
false.
6.The learned District Judge, Dindigul, by order, dated 22.11.2016
was pleased to dismiss the said application stating that sufficient cause
has not been provided. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is
before this Court.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1017 of 2017
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Court should take liberal approach considering the fact that the petitioner
before this court is the idol. He would also submit that the delay is only
on account of mix up of bundles in the counsel's office, which cannot be
directly attributed to the petitioner. He would also submit that the
petitioner may be put on terms for condoning the delay.
8.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
would submit that the very title of the petitioner has been questioned by
the respondent which has been upheld by the trial Court. The petitioner
has not sufficiently explained the reason for the delay and the learned
District Judge has rightly dismissed the said application. He would
therefore plead that the order of the learned District Judge be confirmed.
9.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
10.The plaintiff, which is the idol, has filed the above suit claiming
possession of the property, which the plaintiff would contend, belongs to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1017 of 2017
them. The reason for the delay has been given in the affidavit filed in
support of the petition, though the delay has not been adequately
explained. However, taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff
is the idol of Arulmigu Thayumanavaswamy, this Court is of the view
that the delay may be condoned on the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.
10,000/- as cost to the credit of Indian Association For the Blind,
Sundarajanpatty, Alagal Koil Main Road, Arumbanur Post, Madurai-625
104, on or before 23.12.2021.
11.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the credit of Indian Association For the Blind,
Sundarajanpatty, Alagal Koil Main Road, Arumbanur Post, Madurai-625
104, on or before 23.12.2021.
12.Post the matter for reporting compliance on 03.01.2022.
17.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
cp
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1017 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
Note : (i) Issue order copy on 22.12.2021
(ii) 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 Principal District Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
C.R.P(MD)No.1017 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.4570 of 2017
17.12.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
