Madras High Court
R.Kaaliannan vs S.Vinodh on 1 March, 2021
C.R.P.(MD)No.333 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P.(MD)No.333 of 2021
R.Kaaliannan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Vinodh
2.S.Manoj
3.S.Kathiravan ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC., to
call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated
19.07.2017 made in I.A.No.207 of 2016 in O.S.No.60 of 2011 on the
file of the Additional District Judge, Dindigul District, Dindigul and
set aside the same and allow this civil revision petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair
and decreetal order dated 19.07.2017 made in I.A.No.207 of 2016
in O.S.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.333 of 2021
2.The facts of the case is that the petitioner herein filed a suit
in O.S.No.60 of 2011 for specific performance directing the
defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit
properties in terms of the agreement dated 16.10.2009. The said
suit was dismissed for default on 09.04.2012. Thereafter, the
petitioner to restore the suit, filed a petition with a condone delay
petition to condone the delay of 1569 days. The Court below
dismissed the condone delay petition. Aggrieved over the same,
the present petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
due to the ill-health of the counsel, he was not able to appear
before the Court and hence, the suit was dismissed for default.
Thereafter, a restoration petition filed and handed over to the
earlier counsel and he was under impression that the suit is still
pending. He would further submit 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 the
impugned order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.333 of 2021
4.Perusal of records shows that the suit was filed for specific
performance and the same was dismissed for default. The
petitioner filed the restoration petition with a delay of 1569 days
stating that the counsel was not in good health. Such a reason is
not an acceptable reason for such huge delay and the learned
Judge has rightly dismissed the I.A for condoning such a huge
delay and therefore, by applying the principles in the judgment in
Esha Bhatterjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547, I do not find reason to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Judge. Accordingly, this Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
01.03.2021
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
The Additional District Court, Dindigul District, Dindigul
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.333 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
gns
C.R.P.(MD)No.333 of 2021
01.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
