Madras High Court
Raja vs Dasaratharama Reddy on 10 March, 2022
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019 &
SA.SR.No.128557/2019
1.Raja
2.Esu
3.Balan
4.Venkatesan .. Petitioners /
Appellants
Vs.
1.Dasaratharama Reddy
2.Jaychandran
3.Munikumar Reddy
4.Sulochana
5.Mythili
6.Sri Lakshmi
7.Prabakar Reddy
8.Ramammal
9.Vijayakumar
10.Vasantha Kumar
11.Ravikumar .. Respondents
/ Respondents
Prayer in CMP.No.22472/2019:- Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3[a]
read with Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC to condone the delay of 1929 days in
filing the Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019
Prayer in SA.SR.No.128557/2019:- Second Appeal preferred under 100
of CPC against the decree and judgment dated 03.02.2014 made in
AS.No.30/2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, at Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District reversing the decree and judgment passed in
OS.No.2762004 dated 03.02.2012 on the file of the learned District
Munsif, at Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
For Petitioners /
Appellants : Mr.T.P.Sekar
For RR 2 to 11 : Mr.E.Prabhu
For R1 : No appearance
ORDER
(1) CMP.No.22472/2019 is filed to condone the delay of 1929 days in
filing the Second Appeal.
(2) The petitioners are the defendants in the suit in OS.No.276/2004
who suffered a decree of injunction by the Lower Appellate Court.
(3) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were added as
defendants in their representative capacity to represent the village
people in Koranjur Reddy Palayam Village.
(4) Apart from expressing some difficulties in contesting the suit and
First Appeal, particularly to meet out the expenses, the petitioners
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019
have not given sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay of 1929
days.
(5) It is to be noted that the case of the petitioners is that they were
under the impression that the Appeal Suit in AS.No.30/2012 was
still pending till the respondents./plaintiffs prevented the
petitioners herein from celebrating a sports program in the suit
property during August 2018. This statement of the petitioners in
the affidavit filed in support of this miscellaneous petition is not
acceptable having regard to the nature of dispute and sequence of
events. Even after coming to know that AS.No.30/2012 is decided
against the petitioners/defendants, it is stated that the petitioners
have submitted a representation to the Tahsildar, to take
appropriate action. Even thereafter, till August 2019, the
petitioners have not taken any steps.
(6) In these circumstances, the petitioners' inaction is deliberate,
wilful and hence, they are not entitled to any leniency from this
Court. Though the Courts are expected to show some indulgence
to the litigant public in the matter of delay, the Courts cannot have
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019
an absolute discretion to condone any number of days delay when
there is no proper explanation.
(7) Since the petitioners have not given proper explanation for the
delay of nearly six years, this Court does not find any merit in the
petition.
(8) In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the Second Appeal is rejected at the SR stage
itself.
10.03.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
2.The District Munsif,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Chennai.
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
CMP.No.22472/2019 in SA.SR.No.128557/2019
10.03.2022
