Madras High Court
S.Thirumoorthy vs Sankarappan on 10 March, 2021
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
and
CMP.Nos.15913 and 15919 of 2016
CRP.NPD.No.3133 of 2016
S.Thirumoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sankarappan
2. Ramesh
3. Velusamy @ Velumani ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
04.08.2016 made in I.A.No.48 of 2016 in A.S.No.unnumbered of 2016 in
C.F.R.No.2022 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam by
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran (for R1)
: Notice Served (for R2 & R3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
CRP.NPD.No.3138 of 2016
S.Thirumoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
Sankarappan ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
04.08.2016 made in I.A.No.46 of 2016 in A.S.No.unnumbered of 2016 in
C.F.R.No.2019 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam by
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are directed as against the fair and
decretal orders passed in I.A.Nos. 46 and 48 of 2016 in A.S.No.unnumbered
of 2016 in C.F.R.Nos.2019 and 2022 of 2016 respectively dated 04.08.2016
on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.
2. The petitioner is the 6th defendant in O.S.No.79 of 2011 and he is
also the defendant in O.S.No.161 of 2011 and the first respondent in C.R.P
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
(NPD) No.3133 of 2016 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.79 of 2011 and he, who is
the respondent in C.R.P (NPD) No.3138 of 2016 is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.161 of 2011. He filed the suit for declaration and injunction in
respect of cart track by way of two suits. Both the suits were decreed in
favour of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeals suit with a delay of
694 days.
3. On a perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the condone delay
petitions in filing the appeal suits, the petitioner stated that he went to
Karnataka for his livelihood, due to drought he could not able to do
agriculture in his land. It is unbelievable that for the past two years there
was drought in Erode District viz., Sakarapalayam Village,
Sathyamangalam Taluk. Though there are some areas suffering from heavy
drought, not for continuesly two years. Further, the petitioner also failed to
state where, in the State of Karntaka, he went about for his avocation.
Therefore, there is no sufficient cause as stated by the petitioner to condone
the delay of 694 of days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
reported in 2019 (6) SCC 387 (Bhivchandra Shankar More -vs- Balu
Gangaram More), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as
follows:-
“15. It is a fairly well-settled law that “sufficient
cause” should be given liberal construction so as to
advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no
negligence nor want of bona fides could be imputable to
the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B.
Madhuri [B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012)
12 SCC 693 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 546] , this Court held as
under: (SCC p. 696, para 6)
“6. The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic
enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a
meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No
hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over
the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal
approach needs to be adopted in such matters so that
substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on
the ground of delay.”
16. Observing that the rules of limitation are not
meant to destroy the rights of the parties, in N.
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [N. Balakrishnan v. M.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123] , this Court held as
under: (SCC pp. 127-28, para 11)
“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights
of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The
object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage
caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes
a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal
injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would
never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would
sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy
by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for
each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy
may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential
anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public
policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up
sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be
put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their
remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must
be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment reported in 2019 (6) CTC 344 (Robin Thapa -vs- Rohit Dora),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“8. Ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on
the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should
not be terminated by default either of the plaintiff or the
defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as
possible, adjudication be done on merits.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the litigation is
based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
Litigation should not be terminated by default either of the plaintiff or the
defendant. In the same judgment it is also held that the reason must be
reasonable and correct.
7. In the case on hand, the petitioner stated the reason that he went to
Karnataka as he could not able to do agriculture due to drought in his own
land. Whereas, the respondent/plaintiff filed his counter stating that his land
is very fertile land and he is cultivating sugar cane and other vegetable
crops and he was very much available in the locality. Therefore, the above
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
the case on hand.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the orders passed by the Court below. Accordingly, these Civil
Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
10.03.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kv
To
The Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133 and 3138 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
CRP.NPD.Nos.3133
and
3138 of 2016
10.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
