Chinnasamy vs Rajendiran
2022 Latest Caselaw 15246 Mad

                                                                                 C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 13.09.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
                                                    C.R.P.1077 of 2020
                     Chinnasamy                                              ...Petitioner
                                                           Vs.

                     Rajendiran                                              ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC., against
                     the fair and decreetal order dated 26.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019
                     in A.S.No.Nil of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur.


                                   For Petitioner          : Mr.H.Manojin
                                   For Respondent          : Ms.Elizabeth Ravi


                                                         ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order

dated 26.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.Nil of 2019 on

the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

2.The revision petitioner is the appellant in unnumbered AS of

the year 2019 before the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

Along with the said appeal, he filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under

Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the

appeal.

3.Opposing the same, the respondent herein, has filed a

counter.

4.After full contest, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur,

dismissed the application on the ground that the averments in the

affidavit filed by the revision petitioner in support of the petition, are

vague and that the reason for not filing the appeal within time cannot

also be accepted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

5.In the instant case, the revision petitioner has filed the appeal

against the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge,

Tirupattur, with delay of 12 days. His specific contention in the affidavit

is that he was indisposed and therefore, he could not meet his counsel to

file an appeal in time as against the decree and judgment passed by the

Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. However, according to the First

Appellate Court, the reasons are bald and vague. The First Appellate

Court should have taken into consideration the number of days of delay

in filing the appeal. In the instant case, it is hardly 12 days and the

petitioner has stated that he was indisposed and the delay is not

intentional. In such circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought to

have approached the issue in a pragmatic manner in the interest of

justice.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent contended that each

day's delay has not been explained by the revision petitioner. It is settled

that every day's delay does not require to be explained and the Courts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

should always resort to pedantic approach and refusing to condone the

delay, will result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the

threshold and cause of justice being defeated. In the instant case, the suit

was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for permanent

injunction and the suit was decreed with costs.

7.In the said circumstances, the defendant should have been

given opportunity to file an appeal against the decree and judgment

passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur on 14.03.2019.

By just, by dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, the first Appellate Court had completely closed the doors to the

defendant. Moreover, a bare perusal of the decree and judgment also

shows that they are acceptable points in the appeal.

8.In view of the above and considering the facts and

circumstances, the order passed by the First Appellate Court, Subordinate

Judge, Tirupattur, is liable to be set aside.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

9.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the

First Appellate Court/Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, is directed to

number the appeal filed by the defendant and dispose of the case as early

as possible. No costs.

13.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1077 of 2020

R. HEMALATHA, J.

mtl

To

1.The Subordinate Court, Tirupattur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

C.R.P.1077 of 2020

13.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis