Madras High Court
K.S.Muralidharan vs Uma Sethuram on 25 November, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.18779, 18805 and 18866 of 2021
C.R.P.No.2491 of 2021:
K.S.Muralidharan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Uma Sethuram .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the order and decree passed in I.A.No.46 of
2020 in unnumbered A.S.Sr.No.26843 of 2007 on the file of the Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 13.08.2021.
C.R.P.No.2494 of 2021:
K.S.Muralidharan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Uma Sethuram .. Respondent
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the order and decree passed in I.A.No.48 of
2020 in unnumbered A.S.Sr.No.26859 of 2007 on the file of the Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 13.08.2021.
C.R.P.No.2505 of 2021:
K.S.Muralidharan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Uma Sethuram
2.Gokul Builders & Estates (Madras) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
28, C.V.Raman Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.
3.Ceebros Property Development,
Rep. by its Managing Direcotr,
19/1, 3rd Cross Street,
R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the order and decree passed in I.A.No.47 of
2020 in unnumbered A.S.Sr.No.26844 of 2007 on the file of the Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 13.08.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian
for Mr.J.Ram in all the CRPs.
******
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
These three Revisions have been filed challenging the order of the
learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai condoning the delay in re-
presentation of appeal Sr.Nos.26843, 26844 and 26859 of 2007.
2. Those three appeals were filed against the three suits viz.,
O.S.Nos.6098 of 1997, 3566 of 1998 and 4596 of 2000. The suit in
O.S.No.6098 of 1997 is the suit for specific performance and the other two
suits are for permanent injunction. The trial Court while dismissing
O.S.No.6098 of 1997, had decreed the other two suits.
3. Aggrieved the 1st respondent herein had filed three appeals through
one Mr.S.Sundaragopal, Advocate. It is stated that the appeal papers were
returned and the same were taken back by his junior. Thereafter, the
husband of the 1st respondent fell sick and he was admitted in the hospital.
The 1st respondent who was the Government school teacher was transferred
to various places. She also has to undergo some treatment. It is stated that
the husband of the 1st respondent also met with an accident and suffered
injuries in spleen and the spleen has been removed. While the things stood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
thus, unfortunately, the counsel who appeared for them also died in the year
2016. Thereafter, when the 1st respondent wanted to get back the appeal
papers and re-present them, she could not find the appeal papers either in
the office of the counsel or with his junior.
4. It is in these circumstances, the respondent had applied for fresh
copies and obtained new copies of the judgments and decrees and re-
presented the appeals along with the copies of the judgments and decrees
obtained later and sought for condonation of delay in re-presentation.
5. The same was stoutly opposed contending that the delay is not,
actually, delay in re-presentation, it is delay in presentation. It is also
contended that re-construction of papers can happen only if the papers are
lost by the Court. It was the further contention that the petitioner had mis-
led the Court and obtained order in CRP stating that her husband is no
more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
6. The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai who heard
the application, had concluded that the delay is enormous. He however
found as of fact that the appeals were actually filed in 2007. He accepted
the reasons assigned by the respondent for the delay in re-presentation. He
allowed the applications on condition that the respondent should pay costs
of Rs.5,000/- in each of the applications. Challenge in these Revisions is to
the said order of the learned Principal Judge allowing the applications and
condoning the delay in re-presentation.
7. I have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for
Mr.J.Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Mr.R.Subramanian, would vehemently contend that the delay is not
a delay in re-presentation. According to him the delay in re-presentation
would arise only if the papers that are filed into Court are re-presented.
What the respondent has sought to do before the trial Court was that she
had filed fresh copies of the judgment and decree along with copy of the
grounds of appeals that were filed earlier, that would not be a proper re-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
presentation. He would also further contend that there could be no question
of re-construction of papers unless the papers are lost by the Court. He
would also point out that the 1st respondent has mis-led this Court on earlier
occasion and represented that her husband is dead, but, he is still alive.
9. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.
No doubt, the delay is enormous, but, I find that cogent reasons have been
given in the affidavit explaining the delay. The fact that the respondent was
serving as a Government school teacher is not in dispute. The fact that her
husband met with an accident and suffered spleen injury is also not in
dispute. In fact some evidence in the form of medical records have been
placed before the Court to establish that the husband of the 1 st respondent
had met with an accident.
10. The contention that there cannot be re-construction of records, if
the records are not lost by the Court cannot be accepted for the simple
reason that loosing of papers can happen anywhere, it can happen in the
Court or in the office of the counsel. We have experienced the 2015 floods,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
where several lawyer's offices were inundated. So many papers were lost. If
the Court is to accept the contention that re-construction could happen only
if the papers are lost by the Court, it would lead to disastrous results. If the
party has pleaded that there was an accident or a bona fide error by the
party which had led to loss of papers, there is nothing wrong in allowing re-
construction.
11. As regards the claim that there was mis-representation before this
Court, I find that it is a mistake and not mis-representation. The respondent
has very clearly stated that her husband had met with an accident, the spleen
was injured and the same was replaced at Malar Hospital, Chennai. In the
very same paragraph, it is stated that her counsel Mr.S.Sundaragopal died
during the year 2016. While narrating the facts in the earlier order, it is
made to appear that the husband of the respondent had died. May be that it
is a factually incorrect statement. I do not find any lack of bana fides in that.
12. After all, the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
had exercised discretion in the matter of condoning the delay in re-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
presentation. I do not see any necessity to interfere with such discretion,
particularly, in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
where my jurisdiction is very limited. I therefore see no merits in the revision
and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.11.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Speaking order
To
The Principal Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2491, 2494 and 2505 of 2021
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
