Madras High Court
Meena vs Puchi Azhaguthevar on 28 March, 2022
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022
in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
1. Meena
2. Priya
3. Prem Kumar ... Petitioners/Appellants
-vs-
1. Puchi Azhaguthevar
2. Azhagarsamy
3. Veeramani
4. Muthuramalingam
5. Palpandi
6. Siva Velayutham
[Respondents 1 to 6 are represented
by their Power Agent, P.Muniyandi]
7. Backyalakshmi
8. Stanly Anthony Raj ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer in C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022:- Petition filed under Order 41 Rule
3(4) read with Order 42 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to condone the
delay of 345 days in filing the above Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).SR.No.
1454 of 2022.
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
Prayer in S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022:- Appeal filed under Section 100
of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated
01.04.2019 passed in A.S.No.08 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional
District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated
22.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.28 of 2010 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For RR1, 2 & 4 to 6: Mr.R.Ganesan
For R3 : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
For RR7 & 8 : Unserved
******
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of
345 days filing the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022, which
has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2019 passed
in A.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai,
reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.28 of
2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
2. Rule is to follow law of limitation. Condonation of delay is an
exception. Therefore, exception can never become a rule. Thus,
condonation of delay must be done only if reasons are adequate and
sufficient enough for the Court to take a decision.
3. The pleadings regarding the family situation if accepted, would
defeat the law of limitation. Every family in this country have one or the
other problem and such issues cannot be considered as a ground for the
purpose of condoning the enormous delay. No doubt, certain reasonable
delay can be condoned on such ground, but certainly not the huge delay.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made an
attempt to argue the case on merits. The reasons stated in the petition for
condoning the delay are pivotal and certainly not the merits involved in the
appeal suit or the original suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners made
a submission that any condition or cost may be imposed for condoning huge
delay. Cost cannot compensate the delay and in the event of Courts
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
accepting such cost for condoning the huge delay, undoubtedly the law of
limitation has not only be diluted, but disrespected.
5. The purpose of law of limitation is to ensure that the litigants
are vigilant and prudent enough in pursuing their rights in accordance with
law. A person, who is not vigilant in pursuing his right, then such a person
is not entitled for any relief from the hands of the Courts. No doubt, the
Courts are taking consistent view in condoning the delay, if such delay is
meagre. However, enormous delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned
in a routine manner. For instance, if the delay is one or two months, then
the Courts are always liberal in condoning the delay, understanding the
practical difficulties of the litigant. However, if the delay goes beyond the
reasonable period, then the reasons must be specific, which all are to be
acceptable to the court of law.
6. By condoning the enormous delay, Courts are not expected to
dilute the law of limitation. The law of limitation has got a definite purpose
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
and object. If such object is defeated, then everybody will file appeal at
their wish without reference to the delay and the same will cause prejudice
to the rights of the other parties, who all are the decree holders. The Courts
are bound to take a balanced approach. The rights of the decree holders are
to be protected. Enormous delay in filing the appeal would cause prejudice
to the rights of the other parties. Thus, any appeal is to be filed within the
period of limitation and in the event of enormous delay in filing the appeal,
the Courts are expected to be cautious in condoning the delay and it cannot
be a mechanical affair. In every such delay, the reasons must be stronger
enough to consider the same. Otherwise, the parties are not entitled to get
such enormous delay condoned.
7. In the present case, the reason furnished for condoning the
delay is that the husband of the petitioner died. However, the learned
counsel for the respondents disputed the said contention by stating that the
husband of the petitioner died during the pendency of the first appeal and
the impleadment of the legal heirs was also completed even during the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
pendency of the first appeal on 20.07.2018. Thereafter, the first appeal was
allowed on 01.04.2019.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners
could not able to mobilise the funds within the reasonable period of time.
Even in such cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeals
must have been filed with available funds and if a petition is filed to
condone the delay in paying deficit of court fee, at least the genuinity can be
understood but not otherwise. Therefore, a person, who is not vigilant
enough in pursuing the appeal, cannot be encourage, as it involves the rights
of the other person and in the event of entertaining an appeal and keeping
the same pending for years together will cause prejudice to the rights of the
decree holders. The rights must be exercised within a reasonable period of
time by filing an application adhering the principle of law of limitation. At
no circumstances, the Courts can dilute the law of limitation in a routine
manner. In such an event, the very principle and object of law of limitation
is defeated and therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the claim of
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
the petitioner for condoning the delay of 324 days in filing the second
appeal.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed
and the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD) SR.No.1454 of 2022 stands rejected at
the SR stage itself. No costs.
28.03.2022
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
abr
To
1.The VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
C.M.P.(MD) No.650 of 2022 in
S.A.(MD) SR No.1454 of 2022
28.03.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
