Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6275 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2021
CRP(MD)No.195 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)No.195 of 2020
A.V.A.Senthilbalu ... Petitioner
vs.
1)M.Kamalam
2)State of Tamil Nadu Represented
By District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli.
3)The Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Mannachanallur.
4)The Executive Officer,
Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Mannachanallur.
5)The Sub Registrar,
Mannachanallur. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,
against the order dated 11.03.2019 in I.A.No.137 of 2018 in A.S.SR.No.
6949 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar
For R1 : Mr.H.Arumugam
For R2 to R5 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
Additional Government Pleader
1/4
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.195 of 2020
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the condone delay petition in filing
the appeal suit, this revision is filed by the 1st defendant.
2.The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.458/2011
against the revision petitioner/1st defendant and respondents 2 to
5/defendants 2 to 5, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect
of the suit property. The suit was decreed exparte by judgment and
decree dated 24.06.2014. The revision petitioner/1st defendant filed an
appeal along with I.A.No.137 of 2018 to condone the delay of 1040 days
in filing the appeal. The Court below declined to condone the delay,
against which, the present revision petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that since the
petitioner's counsel had not informed the petitioner about the status of the
case, the above delay has occurred.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
http://www.judis.nic.in CRP(MD)No.195 of 2020
respondents.
5.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge by
elaborate discussion on the way in which the petitioner was aware of the
entire proceedings which were pending before the Court and the
knowledge of the exparte decree, has declined to condone the delay,
where I do not find any infirmity. The principles enumerated in Esha
Bhatterjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur reported in
2013 (5) CTC 547 are squarely applicable to the present case, where the
petitioner does not deserve any indulgence from this Court to condone
the above huge delay.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 09.03.2021
Internet : Yes / No
bala/pkn
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)No.195 of 2020
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala/pkn
To
The Principal District Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)No.195 of 2020
DATED : 09.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!