Madras High Court
R.Nehru vs Sankari on 8 August, 2022
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:08.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
in Review Application SR.No.112151 of 2021
Jagadambal (Deceased)
1.R.Nehru
2.R.Meyyalagan
3.R.Arul
4.R.Suganraj
5.R.Vinayagam
6.Samundeeswari
... Petitioners/Lrs of the deceased Appellants
(Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 22.04.2022
made in CMP.No.1759 of 2022 in Rev.Appl.Sr.No.112151/21
MKKSJ and VSGJ)
Vs.
1.Sankari
2.Sambasivam
3.Devaraj
4.Kalith Theertham
5.Dhenukambal
6.Santhi
7.Sargunam
8.Girija
9.Karpagam
10.Sanjeevi
... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 5 of limitation
Act, praying to accept the cause title in the above Review Application.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Sadasharam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SOUNTHAR,J.)
The petitioners have come up with this petition to condone the
delay of 3810 days in filing the Review Application, seeking review of the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.192 of 2007, dated 19.01.2011.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners
and perused the affidavit filed in support of condone delay petition.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of condone delay petition, the
petitioners contended that their mother Late.Jagadambal, filed a suit for
partition in O.S.No.533 of 2004, on the file of Additional District Judge (Fast
Track Court No.I), Chengalpattu and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by
the same, she filed an appeal in A.S.No.192 of 2007 and the same was
dismissed on 19.01.2011. The petitioners have claimed that on instructions of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
their mother her erstwhile counsel applied for the certified copy of the
judgment and decree in copy application S.R.No.3495 of 2011 and the same
was issued to her on 04.02.2011. The petitioners further averred in their
affidavit that their mother expired on 29.01.2012 and subsequently, their father
expired on 01.05.2018. It was further claimed that they found the xerox copy
of the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.192 of 2007, during December
2020 in the residence and only on perusal of the same, they came to know
about the legal proceedings initiated by her mother. It was further submitted
that thereafter the petitioners obtained expert opinion from a Forensic Lab
regarding the signature found in the Will dated 26.05.1983 alleged to be
executed by the maternal grandmother in favour of maternal uncles, based on
which, their mother was non-suited in the partition suit. The petitioners
claimed that the Forensic Laboratory report dated 10.11.2021 stated that
signature found in the Will were not that of the testatrix and signature of
mother found in the Will as if she attested the same was not that of her. Based
on these facts, the petitioners have filed Review Application SR.No.112151 of
2021 and have come up with this application seeking condonation of delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
4. As per the averments of the petitioners themselves, the
judgment passed by this Court was known to their mother and only on her
instruction copy application was filed for getting the certified copy of the
judgment and decree. It was also admitted by them that the copy of the
judgment and decree were issued to to her on 04.02.2011. As per their own
case their mother only died on 29.01.2012, nearly one year thereafter, but she
had not chosen to challenge the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.192 of
2007 either by Special Leave Petition or by filing Review Application. After
her death, her better-half namely the father of the petitioners also had not taken
any steps till his death on 01.09.2018. The petitioners claim that they acquired
knowledge about the legal proceedings only in December 2020 and thereafter
they have taken steps. When it is clear from the averments of the petitioners in
their own affidavit that the original party to the proceedings namely their
mother was aware of delivery of judgment and she also got the copies of the
judgment and decree on 04.02.2011 itself, absolutely, there is no explanation
for her failure to file a review petition even during her life time. She died only
on 29.01.2012 nearly one year after receipt of the copies of the judgment and
decree. When a party approaches the Court after expiry of period of limitation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
courts have power to condone the delay if the party gives sufficient, valid and
acceptable reasons. Absolutely, there is no explanation in the affidavit of the
petitioner for the failure of their mother or failure of their father to file a
Review Application during their life time. Hence, the huge delay of 3810 days
remained unexplained and consequently, the condone delay petition deserves to
be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners appealed to the court to
issue notice to the respondent in the condone delay application. It is settled
law, even for issuance of notice, the petitioners must make out a case. Unless,
this Court is satisfied with the reason given by the petitioners for explaining
the inordinate delay of 3810 days, it is not necessary for this Court to hear the
other side by issuing notice. In this context, we would like to refer to the
following latin maxim:
“Interest republicae ut sit finis litium”,
which means in the interest of the state there shall be an end to the litigation.
The law of limitation is mainly based on the above said principle. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
absence of law of limitation, there will be a total chaos in the country. There
will be no end to the litigation and any decision or adjudication can be
re-opened at any time. The law of limitation by barring the remedy of
approaching the Court beyond certain time by prescribing a time limit for
initiating a proceeding, puts a full stop to the litigation and thereby perpetuate
peace in the society. The underlining principle is that settled things should not
be re-opened. In view of the same, we do not want to issue notice to the
respondent and re-open the litigation which ended nearly 11 years back
especially when the petitioners failed to give any convincing reasons for
condoning the huge delay of 3810 days.
6. Finding no merits in the petition, the same is dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Review Application is rejected in SR stage itself.
(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J)
08.08.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
ub
CMP.No.9087 of 2022
in Review Application SR.No.112151 of 2021
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
