Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi vs Thangavel on 21 June, 2022
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 21.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2027 of 2022
Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs
Thangavel ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 04.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.59 of
2016 in unnumbered A.S.No. Of 2016 by the Sub Court,
Palani.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramu
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed as against the
order dated 04.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.59 of 2016 in
unnumbered A.S.No. of 2016 by the Sub Court, Palani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
2.The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.497 of
1999. The above suit filed by the respondent was allowed by
judgment and decree dated 28.06.2011. Therefore the
petitioner has engaged a Counsel by name Manivannan to file
an appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in the
suit. Unfortunately the learned Counsel passed away in the
year 2016. When she verified with the family of the said
Counsel, she came to know that no appeal was filed. Then
she collected the bundle and by engaging another counsel,
filed the appeal with a delay of 1737 of days. However, the
trial Court dismissed application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. Aggrieved over the same, the present
civil revision petition is filed.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
after the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2011 passed in
O.S.No.497 of 1999, she engaged the counsel, who had
defended her case in the said suit, to file an appeal.
She has also singed in the papers and whenever she
approached the Counsel, he replied that he would take care
of her appeal, she can meet him only when needed and she
should not disturb him. However she went to the counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
house to verify the status of the appeal and only then she
knew that the counsel passed away on 03.05.2016 and the
appeal was not filed. She then collected the bundle and
filed by the appeal with a delay of 1737 days by engaging
the present counsel. The petitioner believing the words of
the counsel has not contacted him for sometime. Therefore
the delay in filing the appeal was neither wilful nor
wanton. The trial Court without considering the same
dismissed the application and the petitioner is having a
good case in the appeal.
4.The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that
the appeal is filed with 1737 days of delay. The judgment
and decree in O.S.No.497 of 1999 was passed in the year
2011, the counsel whom she engaged passed away in the month
of August 2016 and the appeal was filed in on 15.07.2016.
The date of the death of the counsel is not mentioned
correctly by the petitioner and it is seen that the appeal
is filed in the month of July 2016 and it is claimed that
the counsel passed away in the month of August 2016.
The dates are contradictory to each other. Therefore, the
trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
5.The petitioner has suffered a judgment and decree in
the suit in the year 2011. She immediately engaged a
counsel, who had defended her in the suit to file an
appeal. She also signed all the papers and handed it over
to the counsel and he assured that he would take care of
the appeal. On the assurance given by the counsel, she had
not contacted him for sometime. Only when she went to the
counsel's house during the year 2016, she came to know that
the counsel passed away and no appeal was filed and then
she filed the appeal by engaging another counsel with a
delay of 1737 days. The petitioner trusting the counsel
handed over the papers to him and she was also instructed
not to disturb him often and she can come only when her
presence is required. Though the learned Counsel for the
respondent disputed the date of the death of the counsel,
has not disputed the fact of his death. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to go into it further.
7.In the light of the above, this civil revision
petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] to
the respondent within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the
impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to
number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and proceed
with the appeal and dispose of it as expeditiously as
possible. The parties on either side shall extend their
fullest co-operation to the appellate Court for speedy
disposal of the appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition stands closed.
21.06.2022
dsk
To
1.The Sub Judge,
Palani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
C.R.P(MD)No.461 of 2022
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
