Madras High Court
The Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd vs )S.P.Ponnusamy Nadar & Co on 17 February, 2021
CRP(MD)No.222 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)No.222 of 2021
The Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.,
Venkadampatty, Tenkasi Taluk,
Tirinelveli District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1)S.P.Ponnusamy Nadar & Co.,
Through its Managing Partner,
5/97 B, Karuvela Nadar Street,
Avudaiyanoor Village,
Tenkasi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
2)Selvaraj
3)S.P.Rajendran
4)Thenammal
5)Shiba
6)P.Arulselvi
7)Pushpa
8)Praba
9)Rathnavathiammal
10)Rajeswari ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set
aside the order dated 09.09.2016 made in I.A.No.1160 of 2015 in
O.S.No.145 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Ambasamudram.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh
1/4
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.222 of 2021
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the condone delay petition in filing
the restoration petition, this revision petition has been filed.
2.The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.145 of
20075 against the respondents/defendants for recovery of money. The
suit was dismissed for default on 19.10.2010. The revision
petitioner/plaintiff filed restoration petition in I.A.No.1160 of 2015 to
condone the delay of 1845 days in filing the restoration petition. The
said I.A has been dismissed on 09.09.2016, against which, the present
revision petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would state that
the revision petitioner has 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
petitioner to contest the suit on merits. Thus, he would pray to set aside
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.222 of 2021
the impugned order.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondents.
5.Perusal of record shows that the suit has been filed for recovery
of money which was dismissed for default on 19.10.2010 due to the non
appearance of the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff
filed a petition to restore the suit with the condone delay petition to
condone the delay of 1845 days in filing the restoration petition stating
that after filing proof affidavit and after marking documents in the suit,
the defendants approached the plaintiff bank and assured to repay the
amount payable to the plaintiff bank, but breaching that said promise, the
defendants sold out the suit property to third parties and therefore, the
above delay had occurred in filing the restoration petition. Such a reason
is not an acceptable reason for such huge delay and the reasons for the
delay are not supported by documents and therefore, by applying the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.222 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala/msa
principles in the judgment in Esha Bhatterjee vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547, I am not
inclined to condone the delay.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala/msa 17.02.2021
To
The District Munsif,
Ambasamudram.
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)No.222 of 2021
DATED : 17.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
