Madras High Court
Mrs.Vedhavalli vs Mrs.Mallika on 26 November, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
Mrs.Vedhavalli .. Petitioner
-vs-
Mrs.Mallika .. Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure
against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.06.2014 passed in I.A.No.90
of 2013 in U/F.A.S.No.----- C.F.R.No.3475 of 2013 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Pattukkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirumahil Maran
For Respondent : Mr.M.R.S.Prabhu
******
ORDER
The defendant, in a suit in O.S.No.161 of 2011, whose application
for condoning the delay of 45 days in filing the first appeal against the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
judgment and decree dated 29.04.2013 passed in O.S.No161 of 2011 on
the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai, was dismissed, is the revision
petitioner before this Court.
2.The Appellate Court had dismissed the said application on the
ground that the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition to condone the delay had not been substantiated and further, the
same appear to be unbelievable. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner/defendant is before this Court.
3.The impugned application is filed to condone the delay of 45
days in filing the first appeal.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has stated that the
petitioner had contracted jaundice and further, considering the age, she
was unable to immediately contact her counsel to file the appeal. He
would, therefore, submit that the delay be condoned, as the reasons given
are sufficient.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
5.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently
opposed the above stating that there was no proof given to show that the
petitioner was under some incapacity.
6.Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
7.The respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.161 of 2011
on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai for specific performance
of an agreement of sale, dated 24.04.2010 said to have been executed by
the petitioner herein in her favour. The suit has been decreed and the
petitioner herein had contested the said suit. However, she could not file
the appeal in time.
8.It is time and again held by the Apex Court as well as by this
Court that a liberal view has to be taken while condoning the delay. In
the instant case, the delay is only 45 days and the same has been
adequately explained by the petitioner. That apart, the suit is for a
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
specific performance of an agreement, which has been disputed by the
petitioner herein. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 45
days is condoned. The learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai, is directed to
number the first appeal and dispose of the same within the period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Sub Court, Pattukkottai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1919 of 2014
Dated: 26.11.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
