Madras High Court
Mathyiyalagan vs Loganathan on 12 November, 2021
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(PD)No. 1689 of 2021
and
CMP.No.13083 of 2021
Mathyiyalagan ..Petitioner
Vs.
Loganathan ..Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the
fair and decreetal order made in IA.No.96 of 2019 in OS.No.16 of 2017
dated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Vedaranyam.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondent : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
ORDER
This revision is directed against the order dated 19.01.2021
passed by the Trial Court in IA.No.96 of 2019 in OS.No.16 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
2.The said application was filed by the respondent herein, seeking
condonation of delay of 195 days in filing an application seeking to set
aside the exparte decree that was passed on 14.06.2018. The suit is one for
declaration that the settlement deed dated 20.08.2014 executed by the father
of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is invalid. Consequential
injunction has also been sought for. The plaintiff and the defendant are
brothers.
3.In the said suit, on 23.08.2017 an order has been passed setting
the respondent / defendant exparte. Thereafter, the said suit came to be
decreed exparte on 14.06.2018. The respondent / defendant filed an
application for condonation of delay of 195 days in seeking to set aside the
exparte decree. The respondent herein has, in the affidavit filed in support
of the application, stated that he suffered from jaundice and he was not able
to contact his counsel. The learned Trial judge had accepted the reason and
had allowed the application on payment of costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
4.I have heard Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
5.Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that the reason assigned for condonation of
delay of 195 days cannot be deemed to be a sufficient reason. The learned
counsel further contended that the Trial Judge has not assigned any reason
for condoning the delay. This Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have
repeatedly held that the Courts must not be hypertechnical in considering
applications for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
University of Delhi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2019 SCC
Online SC 1634 has quoted with approval, the earlier judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs.
Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had pointed out that the liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in
matters of condonation of delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
6. Considering the nature of the suit, the prayer sought for and the
length of the delay, I am of the opinion that the respondent herein has
satisfactorily explained the delay. Moreover, the Trial Court has exercised
its discretion in condoning the delay. Hence, I do not see any reason to
interfere with the order of the Trial Court. This civil revision petition fails
and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.11.2021
kkn
Index:No
Internet:Yes
Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
To:-
The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Vedaranyam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.R.P(PD)No. 1689 of 2021
and CMP.No.13083 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)No.1689 of 2021
12.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
