Madras High Court
Thirumalai Kumar vs Ramesh on 22 February, 2021
C.M.P.(MD).No.11245 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.P(MD)No.11245 of 2017
in C.R.P(MD)SR.No.49144 of 2017
Thirumalai kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ramesh ... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P(MD)No.11245 of 2017: This petition is filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 912 days in filing
the above civil revision petition.
Prayer in C.R.P(MD)SR.No.49144 of 2017: This Civil Revision Petition
filed under Section 115 of CPC., to set aside fair and decreetal order dated
07.03.2015 passed in I.A.No.418 of 2013 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai, Tirunelveli
District and allow the present civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.F.X.Eugene
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay
of 912 days in filing the above revision.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.11245 of 2017
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an
interlocutory application has been filed to set aside the ex-parte order with a
delay of 1291 days and the same has been dismissed. Against which, the
present civil revision petition filed with a delay of 912 days.
3.As regards the delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
state that the petitioner's counsel one Mr.A.K.C.Rajan was suffering from
ill-health and was taking treatment and died on 20.07.2015 and the same
was came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the Month of April
2017. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged another counsel and obtained
certified copies of the entire bundle. Hence, there was 912 days delay
occurred in filing the above revision. The above delay occurred which is
neither wilful nor wanton and the petitioner corporation has good grounds
on merits. Thus, he would pray to condone the delay.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
5.Perusal of the records shows that the interlocutory application itself
filed with a delay of 1291 days and the reasons stated in the petition that the
petitioner was suffering from jaundice and therefore there was delay in
filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.11245 of 2017
6.It is seen that no acceptable reason has been adduced for condoning
the huge delay of 912 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous revision.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 912 days in
filing the revision. By applying the principles laid down in the Judgment
reported in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others, [2013 (5) CTC 547 (SC) :
2013 (5) LW 20], I am not inclined to condone the delay of 912 days in
filing the above revision.
7.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. In view of the order passed
in CMP(MD)No.11245 of 2017, the connected C.R.P.(MD)SR.No.49144 of
2017 is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
22.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
gns
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
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.11245 of 2017
J.NISHA BANU,J
gns
C.M.P(MD)No.11245 of 2017
in C.R.P(MD)SR.No.49144 of 2017
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
