Madras High Court
Indhirani Ammal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 6 October, 2021
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1463 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.Indhirani Ammal
2.Elumalai
3.Minor Eswaramoorthy
4.Minor Bharanimoorthy ...Petitioners
(Minors respondents 3 & 4 rep. by
father & natural guardian, second
petitioner Elumalai)
Vs
1.Rajiv Gandhi
2.Rajesh
3.Minor Rajavel ... Respondents
(Minor rep. by father & natural
guardian Rajesh)
Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, prayed to set aside the order dated 30.01.2015 made in I.A.No.38 of
2014 in O.S.No.292 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
For Petitioners : Ms.V.Suguna
For R1 : Not ready in notice
For R2 & R3 : Ms.Sasikala Ramadoss
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal order
dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.38 of 2014, seeking to
condone the delay of 834 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte
order.
2.The reason assigned by the revision petitioners for the delay was that
their Lawyer failed to inform them about filing the written statement and the
date of hearings periodically. Due to the communication gap between their
Lawyer and the revision petitioners, the delay had occurred in filing the written
statement, which was neither willful nor wanton. However, the Court below
elaborately dealt with the reason assigned by the revision petitioners by
referring various judgments and ultimately found that the reason assigned was
not cogent and proper. Therefore, the Court below refused to condone the
delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly
submitted that this Civil Revision Petition is pending for the past six years and
due to the pendency of the same, there is no progress in the suit. Though she
vehemently opposed to condone the delay, finally, she submitted that the delay
may be condoned subject to the payment of costs and in the event of condoning
the delay, she requested to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit within a
stipulated time frame.
4.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners also submitted that the
Civil Revision Petition may be allowed subject to payment of costs.
5.Though both the learned counsel unanimously submitted to allow the
Civil Revision Petition on payment of costs, the delay in the present case is 834
days and the said delay had occurred due to the communication gap between the
Lawyer and the revision petitioners. Further, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners contended that the Lawyer had not communicated about the
hearing dates from time to time to the petitioners. Though this cannot be a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
reason to be assigned for condoning the huge delay of 834 days, this Court can
look into aspect as to whether an opportunity should be given to the revision
petitioners to contest the suit by filing the written statement in the interest of
justice.
6.This Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioners cannot accuse the
Lawyer solely that the Lawyer has not communicated the date of filing the
written statement. On the other hand, it is the duty of the petitioners to contact
the Lawyer from time to time and know about the development of the case,
unless and otherwise the revision petitioners already given any standing
instructions to their Lawyer to communicate the hearing dates and on which
case, the Lawyer also accepted the same. In the present case, no material has
been placed before this Court in order to show any standing instructions were
given to their Lawyer and his acceptance to communicate about the hearing
dates and development in the case from time to time. Of course, it is the duty of
the Lawyer to conduct the case in the Court. But, the Revision Petitioner
supposed to have contacted the Lawyer and get information about the
development in their case. Therefore, simply the petitioners cannot put blame
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
on the Lawyer and come before this Court, as a cause for the delay in filing the
written statement.
7.Though failure of the Lawyer to inform the Revision Petitioners was
cause for not filing the written statement in time, this Court is not inclined to
accept that as sufficient cause was shown for condoning the huge delay.
Further, both the learned counsel have unanimously made a submission that the
delay may be condoned since the matter is pending for the past six years and in
the interest of justice, the delay needs to be condoned. Taking note of the
submission of the either side counsel and in the interest of justice, this Court is
inclined to condone the delay, subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- payable by
the revision petitioners to the learned counsel for the respondent, within a
period of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.The Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms and the
impugned order dated 30.01.2015 passed in I.A.No.38 of 2014 in O.S.No.292 of
2010 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Ulundurpet is set aside. Since the suit has been pending from the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
2010, the learned First Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Ulundurpet, is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
revision petitioners are directed to file their Written Statement on the first date
of hearing of the suit on receipt of this order copy by the Court below, failing
which, the benefit granted in this order, will automatically cease to operate. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.10.2021
Index: Yes
Internet:Yes
Speaking order/Non Speaking Order
rst
To:
The First Additional District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Ulundurpet.
Note: Issue Order Copy on 11.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(NPD).No.1463 of 2015
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
rst
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1463 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
06.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
