Madras High Court
)Vijayalakshmi vs )O.Panchanathan on 16 February, 2021
CRP(MD)No.214 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)No.214 of 2021 and
CMP(MD)No.1314 of 2021
1)Vijayalakshmi
2)M.Sasireka
3)S.Nandhini
4)Buvaneswari
5)Sridevi
6)R.Karthikeyan ... Petitioners
vs.
1)O.Panchanathan
2)Jothi
3)O.Yasothan
4)Saraswathi
5)Chitra ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set
aside the order dated 02.03.2018 in I.A.No.917 of 2017 in O.S.No.1162
of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sekar
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition to condone the delay in
filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in the suit, this
revision petition has been filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.214 of 2021
2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1162 of 2013
against the revision petitioners/defendants for specific performance. The
suit was decreed exparte on 10.02.2015. The revision
petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.917 of 2017 to condone the delay of
661 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said
I.A has been dismissed on 02.03.2018, against which, the present
revision petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants
would state that the revision petitioners have got good case on merits
and the Court below ought to have taken pragmatic view in considering
the delay condonation petition and instead of throwing the matter on
technicalities, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay to
enable the revision petitioners to contest the suit on merits. Thus, he
would pray to set aside the impugned order.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents would state that the
Court below finding that the petitioners have not stated acceptable
reason and the reason stated by the petitioners is not supported by
documents, has rightly declined to condone the delay and therefore, the
same does not warrant interference by this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.214 of 2021
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondents.
6.Perusal of record shows that the suit has been filed for specific
performance which was decreed exparte on 10.02.2015 due to the non
appearance of the revision petitioners/defendants. The
petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.917 of 2017 to condone the delay of
661 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, stating that
the 6th defendant was suffering from jaundice and bedridden from
February 2014 onwards and therefore, he could not meet his advocate
and give instructions for filing written statement. The learned Judge
holding that the details as to when the 6th defendant was suffering from
jaundice, when he was recovered from the said disease, where he had
taken treatment and why other defendants were not looking after the
case, are not stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay
petition, has dismissed the I.A for condoning such a huge delay. In my
opinion, by applying the principles in the judgment in Esha Bhatterjee
vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur reported in 2013 (5) CTC
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.214 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala/gns
547, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Judge.
7.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala/gns 16.02.2021
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli.
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)No.214 of 2021
DATED : 16.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
