Madras High Court
S.Rajasekhar (Died) vs The Executive Officer on 19 January, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.04.2021
Pronounced on : 19.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P(MD) No.553 of 2021
1.S.Rajasekhar (died)
2.Uma
3.R.Sakthivel
4.R.Karthikeyan : Petitioners/ Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Executive Officer,
Vilavoor Town Panchayat
Thukalay Village,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The President,
Vilavoor Town Panchayat,
Having Office at Vilavoor,
Thuckalay Village,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
3.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by District Collector,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil,
Agastheewsaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents / Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to allow the civil revision petition and set aside the order
and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.SR No.6794 of 2018
on the file of Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram, dated 19.01.2021.
For petitioners : Mr. V.M.Balamohan Thambi
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in
I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.SR No.6794 of 2018, dated 19.01.2021, on the file
of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, dismissing the application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2.The first revision petitioner, who is no more now, has originally
filed a suit in O.S.No.279 of 2009 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Padmanabhapuram. The respondents have filed a written statement and
contested the suit. The learned District Munsif, after conducting trial, has
passed a judgment on 18.02.2011, holding that the revision petitioner was
not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction, dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first revision petitioner has filed an
appeal before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, along with an application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
to condone the delay in filing the appeal in I.A.No.6 of 2014 in A.S.SR.No.
2690 of 2013 and that the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram,
has passed an order dismissing the said petition vide order, dated
21.04.2017.
3.The revision petitioners 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the
deceased first revision petitioner, filed a revision petition in CRP (NPD)
(MD) No.32847 of 2018 before this Court challenging the dismissal order
dated 21.04.2017 mainly on the ground that though the first revision
petitioner had died during the pendency of the said I.A.No.6 of 2004,
without bringing the legal heirs of the deceased, an enquiry was conducted
and orders were passed on merits. Since the Registry of this Court raised
an objection about the maintainability of the civil revision petition, after
hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this court passed an
order on 27.08.2018 sustaining the objection raised by Registry and gave
an opportunity to the revision petitioner to file a fresh application for
condonation of the delay in filing the first appeal and also directed the
court below to exclude the delay occurred in prosecuting I.A.No.6 of 2014
in A.S.SR.No.2690 of 2013 and also the time taken for prosecuting the
civil revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petitioners 2 to 4 have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking orders to condone the
delay of 1066 days in filing the appeal and that the learned Subordinate
Judge, after conducting the enquiry and on hearing both sides, has passed
the impugned order on 19.01.2021 dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved
by the said order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.
4.No doubt, as per section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, it is for
the applicant to plead and prove the sufficient cause for the delay occurred.
It is settled law that the words “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the
Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics,
want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the
applicant. Moreover, the decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the
length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. The extent
or degree of leniency to be shown by a Court depends on the nature of the
petition and the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
5.In the case on hand, a cursory perusal of the affidavit filed in
support of the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2019 would reveal that the revision
petitioners have not at all canvassed or advanced any reason or cause for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
the delay occurred. Though the third revision petitioner has filed an
affidavit running to three pages in six paragraphs, he has only narrated
what had happened so far and he has nowhere whispered any facts or
particulars connected with the delay. In the affidavit, they have only stated
that the delay caused is neither wilful nor wanton, that the same was
caused beyond their control and that the same is liable to be condoned.
6.It is pertinent to mention that the revision petitioners in their
affidavit, had specifically mentioned that there was a total delay of 2824
days and after excluding the delay of 1758 days as per the orders of this
Court, still 1066 days delay is yet to be condoned. No doubt, the delay of
1066 days is inordinate. As already pointed out the revision petitioners
have neither pleaded nor shown any reason or sufficient cause for
condoning the delay. Hence, the question of deciding as to whether the
cause shown by the revision petitioner are sufficient or not, does not arise
at all.
7.The deceased first revision petitioner, in his plaint, has specifically
admitted that the suit property was originally classified as “revenue
promboke” belonging to the Government and by pleading that he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
perfected his title by adverse possession, has claimed the relief of
permanent injunction restraining the State Government and panchayat
officials from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the said property. The learned Trial Judge, by holding that the plaintiff
therein has failed to prove that he had perfected the title by adverse
possession and that the alleged cause of action was not also proved,
dismissed the suit as early as on 18.02.2011.
8.As rightly pointed out by the respondents in their counter
statement that the revision petitioners have been trying to keep the lis
pending. Considering the above, the decision of the learned Subordinate
Judge in dismissing the application cannot be found fault with and this
court is in entire agreement with the order passed by the learned Sub
Court, Padmanabhapuram. Consequently, this court is not inclined to
admit the civil revision petition and the civil revision petition is liable to
be dismissed.
9.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost.
19.04.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Padmanabhapuram,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No. 553 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
cp
Pre-Delivery Order made in
C.R.P(MD) No.553 of 2021
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
