Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Muniamma on 19 February, 2021
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.283 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2621 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Dharmapuri. ...Petitioner
Vs
Muniamma ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.02.2020
passed in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in M.C.O.P.No.321 of 2013 on the file of the
Special Sub Judge (MACT), Krishnagiri pending disposal of the main
Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner: Mr.D.Raghu
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
04.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in M.C.O.P.No.321 of 2013, in
and by which, the application filed under Section 5 of limitation Act
seeking to condone the delay of 1989 days in filing the petition under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be dismissed.
2. The respondent herein has filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.321 of
2013 before the Court below, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-
from the petitioner herein, since she sustained injuries in a road accident,
which was caused by the driver of the bus belonging to the petitioner
Corporation, by order dated 11.10.2013. The said petition came to be
allowed and ex-parte award of Rs.33,00,000/- was passed against the
petitioner herein. Later, the respondent moved an execution petition in
R.E.P.No.9 of 2019. In the said proceedings, it appears that the petitioner
has served. Immediately, the petitioner has come forward with an
application in I.A.No.4 of 2019, seeking to condone the delay of 1989
days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside
the ex-parte decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
3. According to the petitioner, they appointed one
Mr.K.C.Krishnan to defend the cases on behalf of the petitioner
Corporation. However, the said counsel had left from the petitioner's
Corporation Advocates Panel and thereby the petitioner was not aware of
the ex-parte award passed against the petitioner on 11.10.2013.
According to the petitioner, their absence on 11.10.2013 was neither
wanton not willful. But, due to the bonafide reason that they were not
aware of the proceedings and they had good cause to define the case, the
above said petition was registered by the respondent herein by filing a
counter inter alia contending that the petition was not maintainable.
Since there was no bonafide reason assigned by the petitioner to condone
the huge delay, the petitioner had not taken any initiative to verify the
status and stage of the case.
4. On considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on
perusal of the records, the Court below has dismissed the petition. The
Court below was of the view that the petitioner was set ex-parte on
13.02.2012 and ex-parte award was passed on 11.10.2013 and that the
petitioner was well aware of the pendency of the M.C.O.P. No.321 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
2013 and the petitioner came to know about the ex-parte award only
when they were served notice in execution petition and even after
coming to know about the proceedings and award, the petitioner, merely
after a period of 5½ of years, has come up with the application seeking to
condone the huge delay. Therefore, there is no bonafide on the part of the
petitioner. In such view of the matter, the Court below has dismissed the
application.
5. On a perusal of the order passed by the Court below and the
materials placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioner though
pleaded that they were not aware of the ex-parte award passed in the
M.C.O.P.No.321 of 2013 on 04.02.2020, but it is pertinent to note that
they were aware of the M.C.O.P. proceedings pending before the Court
below, the only reason assigned by the petitioner is that they had engaged
a counsel to defend on their behalf and that he had left from the panel
and has not informed the pendency of the case and returned the bundle.
In such circumstances, it is for the petitioner to engage another Counsel
to pursue the matter before the Court below. But, there is no bonafide
cause shown on the part of the petitioner to immediately respond.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
Strangely after a period of 5½ years, they leisurely filed the petition
seeking to condone a huge delay. The reasons stated are not cogent and
convincing.
6. Insofar as the contention relating to condonation of delay of
1989 days is concerned, it has been the consistent view of the Court that
the delay has to be explained and sufficient cause requires to be shown.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal
Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, (2012 (5) SCC 157) on the question of
limitation and the underlying principle governing the law of limitation,
held as under :-
“14. We have considered the respective
arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinised
the record. The law of limitation is founded on
public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not
been enacted with the object of destroying the
rights of the parties but to ensure that they
approach the court for vindication of their rights
without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying
the concept of limitation is that every remedy
should remain alive only till the expiry of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
period fixed by the legislature. At the same time,
the courts are empowered to condone the delay
provided that sufficient cause is shown by the
applicant for not availing the remedy within the
prescribed period of limitation.
15. The expression “sufficient cause” used in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other
statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to
apply the law in a meaningful manner which
serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule
has been or can be laid down for deciding the
applications for condonation of delay but over the
years this Court has advocated that a liberal
approach should be adopted in such matters so
that substantive rights of the parties are not
defeated merely because of delay.
* * * * * * *
23. What needs to be emphasised is that even
though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is
required to be adopted in the exercise of power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other
similar statutes, the courts can neither become
oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
has acquired certain rights on the basis of the
judgment under challenge and a lot of time is
consumed at various stages of litigation apart
from the cost.
24. What colour the expression “sufficient
cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given
case would largely depend on bona fide nature of
the explanation. If the court finds that there has
been no negligence on the part of the applicant
and the cause shown for the delay does not lack
bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on
the other hand, the explanation given by the
applicant is found to be concocted or he is
thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause,
then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion
not to condone the delay.”
7. From the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
clear that the Court below has applied its mind and rightly rejected the
condone delay petition filed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.No.283 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
sbn
8. That being the factual position, this Court is of the view that the
order passed in not condoning the delay is in order and does not call for
any interference. Accodringly, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is also closed.
19.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
sbn
To
The Special Sub Court,(MACT)
Krishnagiri.
C.R.P. (NPD) No.283 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2621 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
