Madras High Court
)Dhanuskodi vs )Natchiyappan on 8 March, 2021
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
1)Dhanuskodi
2)Subramanian
3)Kannusamy
4)Gurusamy
5)Natchammal
6)Natchammal ... Petitioners
vs.
1)Natchiyappan
2)Velmurugan
3)Kumar
4)Kailasam
5)Subbiah
6)Sivalingam
7)Gurusamy
8)Subramanian
9)Rasu
10)Vellaisamy
11)Subramanian
12)Kathireshan ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,
against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.
354 of 2015 in UFA.S.C.F.R.No.4930 of 2015 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Rahamadullah
1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the condone delay petition in filing
the appeal suit, this revision petition has been filed.
2.The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of
2012 for partition and the said suit was dismissed on 11.07.2014. The
revision petitioners filed I.A.No.354 of 2015 to condone the delay of 365
days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated
11.07.2014 passed in the suit. The said I.A has been dismissed on
22.11.2017, against which, the present revision petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the
petitioners after taking legal advice, decided to file appeal and since the
1st petitioner suffered from jaundice and knee pain, the petitioners were
not able to file appeal in time and there was a delay of 365 days in filing
the appeal. He would further state that the revision petitioners have 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
condoned the delay to enable the revision petitioners to contest the
appeal on merits. Thus, he would pray to set aside the impugned order.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondents.
5.Perusal of record shows that the suit has been filed for partition
and the suit has been dismissed on 11.07.2014. After the dismissal of the
suit, the appeal was filed after a period of 365 days. In the interregnum
period, by suppressing the outcome of the suit in favour of the
respondents, the petitioners have initiated proceedings before the DRO,
Sivagangai, stating that the patta was wrongly transferred in the name of
the respondents in the UDR scheme. In the said proceedings, the
petitioners have personally participated and therefore, the learned Judge
taking into consideration that the reason alleged by the petitioners for the
delay is not acceptable reason, has dismissed the condone delay petition,
against which, the present revision is filed. Even this revision petition
has been filed with the delay of 52 days. It is the bounden duty of the
petitioners to explain each and every day delay. Such a reason is not an
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
acceptable reason for such huge delay and the reasons for the delay are
not supported by documents and therefore, by applying the principles in
the judgment in Esha Bhatterjee vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547, I am not inclined to
condone the delay.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala 08.03.2021
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Sivagangai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)No.271 of 2021
DATED : 08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
