Madras High Court
Valliammal vs Chandrasekar on 26 April, 2022
CMP.No.6965/2022
in SA.SR.No.29371/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CMP.No.6965/2022 in SA.SR.No.29371/2022 & SA.SR.No.29371/2022
1.Valliammal
2.Nandakumar .. Petitioners /
Appellants
Vs.
Saraswathi (Died)
Valliammal (Died)
Palanisamy (Died)
1.Chandrasekar
2.Thangam
3.Mohanraj
4.Passupathi
5.Tulasimani .. Respondents
Prayer in CMP.No.6965/2022:- Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3A
r/w Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC to condone the delay of 1995 days in filing
the above Second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 Page of 5
CMP.No.6965/2022
in SA.SR.No.29371/2022
Prayer in SA.SR.No.29371/2022:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100
of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree 16.06.2016
made in AS.No.25/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur reversing the judgment and decree dated
22.07.2009 in OS.No.53/2006 on the file of the learned Principal
Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.
For Petitioners /
Appellants : Mr.S.Gunaseelan
ORDER/JUDGMENT
(1) This petition is filed to condone the delay of 1995 days in filing the
above Second Appeal.
(2) Heard Mr.S.Gunaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
(3) The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the
respondents for partition. Though the suit was dismissed by the
Principal Sub Court, Tiruppur, it is stated that the appeal preferred by
the plaintiffs in A.S.No.25/2011 was allowed and a preliminary
decree for partition was granted. Aggrieved by the preliminary
decree pursuant to the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, the
second appeal is filed with the delay of 1955 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 Page of 5
CMP.No.6965/2022
in SA.SR.No.29371/2022
(4) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the
petitioners handed over the case papers to the Trial Court advocate
for filing the second appeal and that they came to know later that no
second appeal was filed before this Court. In the same paragraph, the
petitioners have stated that they applied for copies of deposition of
witnesses and given other reasons for not filing the appeal in time. It
is also stated that in the year 2017, the petitioners met the
respondents' relatives and that the issue between them could be
settled by negotiation. Stating that the petitioners were under the
impression that the dispute can be resolved outside Court, no appeal
was filed at that time.
(5) From the multiple reasons given by the petitioners in the affidavit,
this Court is of the view that there is no truth in any of the reasons.
The petitioners have not produced any material to justify the long
delay in approaching this Court. Since the delay has not been
properly explained, this Court is not inclined to show any indulgence
especially when the delay is more than 5 ½ years. Unless the delay is
properly explained and cause is shown for not filing the appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Page of 5
CMP.No.6965/2022
in SA.SR.No.29371/2022
within time, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of
the petitioners for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay
appears to be wilfull and the reasons stated are casual. This Court
finds neither merits nor bona fides.
(6) Having regard to the facts stated above, this petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the Second Appeal is rejected at the SR Stage.
26.04.2022
cda
Internet : Yes
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.
3.The SAR, Main AE Section
High Court, Madras.
4.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Page of 5
CMP.No.6965/2022
in SA.SR.No.29371/2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
cda
CMP.No.6965/2022 in SA.SR.No.29371/2022
and
SA.SR.No.29371/2022
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 Page of 5
