Madras High Court
Sarojini Ammal vs Sri Chennamalleeswara Sri ... on 28 January, 2022
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.8091 of 2019
G.Ekambara Gurrukal (died)
1. Sarojini Ammal
2. Ravishankar
3. Bhaskar
4. Geetha
5. Malliga
6. Sarumathi
7. Revathi .. Petitioners in both
petitions
Vs.
Sri Chennamalleeswara Sri Chennakeavaperumal Devasthanam,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee
Manali Ramakrishna Mudaliar (died),
Son of Manali Srinvasa Mudaliar,
Having office at No.84, Devaraja Mudali Street,
Park Town, Madras – 600 003
Manali R.Srinivasan,
Office at No.84, Devaraja Mudali Street, Park Town,
Chennai – 1.
.. Respondent in both petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.02.2019 in C.M.P.
No.1457 of 2018 and I.A. No.70 of 2019 in A.S. Sr. No.56918 of 2017
passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr. T.A.Srinivasen
(in both petitions)
For Respondent : Mr. S.D.Ramalingam
(in both petitions)
COMMON ORDER
These two civil revision petitions have been preferred by the
defendant in the suit in O.S. No.819 of 1992 on the file of the V Assistant
City Civil Court, Chennai, as against the order refusing to condone the
delay of 394 days in representing the appeal papers which was filed as
against the judgment and decree in O. S. No.819 0f 1992 in favour of the
respondent plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
2. The respondent is a temple represented by its hereditary trustee.
The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.819 of 1992 for recovery of
possession of the suit property and to pay the damages for use and
occupation of the suit property. Though the suit was filed in the year 1992,
the suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016.
From the reading of the judgment, all the issues raised by the lower Court
were answered in favour of the plaintiff / first respondent.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower Court in O.S.
No.819 of 1992, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the
City Civil Court, Chennai. The appeal is yet to be numbered and it is
pending in A.S. Sr. No.56918 of 2017. The appeal preferred by the
revision petitioner was returned for certain defects. However, the papers
were represented with the delay of 394 days. Similarly, the appeal was
presented with the deficit Court fee of Rs.1,900/-. The application in I.A.
No.70 of 2019 was filed to condone the delay of 444 days in paying deficit
Court fee of Rs.1,900/-. The petition to condone the delay in
representation in C.M.P. No.1457 of 2018 in A.S. Sr. No.56918 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
as well as the application in I.A. No.70 of 2019 to condone the delay of
444 days in paying the deficit Court fee of Rs.1,900/- were dismissed by
the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Aggrieved by the
same, the defendants in the suit preferred the above Civil Revision
Petitions.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay
in representation, the revision petitioners have stated that due to illness,
the the third petitioner was unable to contact the petitioners' counsel to
instruct him and to hand over certain documents and to sign the papers
prepared by the counsel. Apart from other reasons, the economic
conditions of the petitioners were also stated as a reason for the delay in
representation. Similar explanation was also offered by petitioners in the
application to condone the delay of 444 days in paying deficit Court fee of
Rs.1,900/-. The lower Court, dismissed both the applications on the
ground that the petitioners have not stated any bonafide reasons to
condone the delay in representing the appeal. Similarly the application to
condone the delay in paying the deficit Court fee was also dismissed on
the ground that there was no representation for the petitioners on the day
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
when the petition was taken up for hearing. Recording the fact that the
petition to condone the delay in representation had been dismissed earlier
on merits, the lower Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application to
condone the delay in payment of deficit Court fee.
5. From the order of lower Court, it is seen that the lower Court was
guided by the merits of the case and the long delay in disposal of the suit.
In a petition to condone the delay in representation, the reason for the
delay may be for various reasons. The same principles which are to
adopted to consider the delay in filing may not be followed in disposing
the applications to condone the delay in representation. It is not as if the
petitioners have not stated any reasons to condone the delay in
representation.
6. This Court is unable to doubt the bonafides of the revision
petitioners. It is true that the suit filed in the year 1992 was disposed of
only in the year of 2016 and the inordinate delay of more than 444 days
caused great prejudice to the respondent. However, that does not mean
that the application filed by the revision petitioners can be disposed of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioners to prosecute the
appeal on merits. The reason stated by the revision petitioners for the
delay in representation cannot be ignored as the facts stated by the
revision petitioners are not seriously disputed. This Court is of the view
that the Court should not be more rigid. The Court should always consider
the applications to condone the delay in representation liberally, so as to
advance the cause of justice. The inconvenience caused to the respondent
after the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent is a factor that
should be considered to compensate the respondent.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the delay in
representation can be allowed on payment of cost to the respondent. The
other application filed by the revision petitioner is to condone the delay of
444 days in paying deficit Court fee was dismissed on the ground that the
application to condone the delay in representation had been dismissed.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the revision petition can be
allowed by directing the revision petitioners to pay cost to the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
8. Considering the fact that the respondent is a temple and has spent
nearly three decades in the litigation, the Civil Revision Petitions are
allowed on condition that the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- in each revision petition to the respondent, within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon payment
of cost as directed above, the petition in C.M.P. No.1457 of 2018 & I.A.
No.70 of 2019 in A.S.Sr. No.56918 of 2017, stands allowed. The learned
Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall dispose of the appeal as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from
the date of restoration of the appeal. The connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
28.01.2022
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index: Yes / No
bkn
To
1. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The V Judge, Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
bkn
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1249 & 2671 of 2019
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
