N.Leelavathi vs Tmt.Mary Wilson
2021 Latest Caselaw 1075 Mad

                                                                           C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 19.01.2021

                                                      CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                              C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.13739 of 2017

                     1.N.Leelavathi
                     2.M.Ambikavathi
                     3.Minor Keerthana
                     4.Minor Lavanya
                     5.N.Prakash
                     6.Murali
                     P.Natarajan(Died)                                       ..Appellants

                                                        Vs.
                     1.Tmt.Mary Wilson
                     2.The District Collector,
                       Coimbatore.                                         ..Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of
                     C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.01.2017 order
                     passed in I.A.No.795 of 2015 in P.O.P.No.217 of 2007 on the file of the
                     Hon'ble Principal District Court, Coimbatore.




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

                                     For Appellants     :     M/s.P.T.Rama Devi

                                     For Respondents :        M/s.Kundavai
                                                              For Mr.C.R.Prasanan
                                                              [For R1]

                                                              Mr.S.Jeganathan
                                                              Government Advocate(CS)
                                                              [For R2]

                                              JUDGMENT

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 11.01.2017 made in

I.A.No.795 of 2015 in P.O.P.No.217 of 2007 on the file of the Hon'ble

Principal District Court, Coimbatore, is sought to be set aside in the

present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The appellants/petitioners filed P.O.P.No.201 of 2017. The said

Original Petition was dismissed and in order to restore the P.O.P, an

Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.795 of

2015. The trial Court adjudicated the issues and made a finding that the

petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter. The conduct of the

petitioners during the course of the hearing was considered by the trial

Court. The trial Court in Paragraph 8, considered the reason for the

dismissal of the Interlocutory Application, which reads as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

“8.In the above circumstances, this Court on

23.01.2015, dismiss the main OP for non-appearance of

P.W.1. Now, immediately within a limitation period this

application, seeking the relief to restore the main OP filed

by this petitioner. In which, the petitioner stated in his proof

affidavit that due to the old age, he did not hear the correct

hearing date from her counsel. The above submission made

by the petitioner was strongly denied by the respondent and

submitted that the petition is filed only to drag on the

proceedings. It is true that if the petitioner is really having

interest in Pauper OP, he has to appear before this Court

for each and every hearing. But, after filing proof affidavit,

inspite of repeated adjournments for the past one year, he

has not appeared before this Court, which resulted in

dismissal of the main petition. It shows that the petitioner is

not having any interest to proceed the main OP. Keeping the

Pauper OP from the year of 2007 to 2015 is causing much

inconvenience to the respondent. So, the reasons submitted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

by the petitioner for allowing this application is not a

bonafide reason and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

The point is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, this petition is DISMISSED.”

3. Even after filing of proof affidavit and in spite of repeated

adjournments for more than one year, the petitioners have not appeared

before the Trial Court, which resulted in dismissal of the main petition.

The pauper O.P was kept pending from the year 2007-2015 for about 8

years, which would certainly cause inconvenience to the opposite parties

as rightly observed by the trial Court and the P.O.P was filed in the year

2007.

4. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the reasons furnished for rejection of the Interlocutory Application

filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., is in consonance

with the legal principles and there is no infirmity as such.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

5. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal order dated 11.01.2017

made in I.A.No.795 of 2015 in P.O.P.No.217 of 2007 on the file of the

Hon'ble Principal District Court, Coimbatore stands confirmed and the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2061 of 2015 stands

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

19.01.2021

kak Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

To

1. The Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

2.The Sub-Assistant Registrar, A.E.Section, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

kak

C.M.A.No.2617 of 2017

19.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/