Madras High Court
Rukkammal (Died) vs P.Chinnadurai .. Plaintiff / on 18 April, 2023
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
and CMP.No.9186 of 2019
Rukkammal (Died) ..Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant
P-2. S.Kamala
P-3. T.Venkatesh
P-4 T.Shankaran .. Petitioners
Vs
P.Chinnadurai .. Plaintiff / Respondent / Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC praying to
set aside the order and decree in I.A.No.12585/2018 in I.A.No.8242/2012 in
O.S.No.9024/2010 dated 06.03.2019 on the file of IV Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai, and allow this revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Appavu
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ilamurugu
ORDER
This matter comes up before this Court for final disposal. On 29.03.2023,
this Court has heard the matter substantially, and for convenience the orders
thereof are extracted and reproduced as below :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
"This revision arises out of a very ordinary order seeking
extension of time for payment of cost for condonation of delay
in filing an application for setting aside an exparte decree.
2. The suit was originally laid before this Court in C.S.No.321
of 2009, which later came to be transferred to City Civil Court,
and taken on its file in O.S.No.9024/2010, and that summons
were duly served, and the written statement was also filed. The
defendant however did not participate in the trial, consequent
to which, the suit was decreed exparte on 23.12.2011.
Thereafter, the plaintiff has laid an execution petition and the
defendant/JD entered appearance and filed their counter
there. In the meantime, the defendant preferred an application
in I.A.No.8242/2012 for setting aside the exparte decree along
with an application for condonation of delay, and that was
allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/-, but the said cost was
not paid, and as a consequent of which, the application was
dismissed. After the dismissal of the interlocutory application
for condonation of delay, the plaintiff has filed
E.P.No.2131/2012, in which notice was ordered and served on
the defendant. Subsequently, this EP came to be closed.
Following this sometime in 2013, the plaintiff filed yet another
execution petition in E.P.No.5019/2013, in which delivery was
ordered. Thereafter, the JD is said to have been negotiating
with the decree holder, consequent to which, that EP was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
prosecuted. Since delivery was not given to the plaintiff, the
plaintiff/decree holder had filed yet another petition in
E.P.No.1581/2018 for executing the decree passed on
23.12.2011. At this juncture, the judgment debtor, under
Section 148 CPC., moved the trial Court in I.A.No.12585/2018,
for extension of time to comply with the conditional order
earlier passed while allowing that application in
I.A.No.8242/2012 for condonation of delay. This was
dismissed, and that is now in challenge in this revision.
3. In the course of hearing, the counsel for the decree holder
submitted that in this ongoing 15 years old litigation, the
revision petitioner / judgment debtor are dilly-dallying the
judicial process and comes out with multiple reasons for
delaying and deviating the rights of the decree holder. He
added that the revision petitioner had even demolished the
property sold to the plaintiff."
2. This Court thereafter proceeded to appoint Ms.M.Meena Rukmani,
Advocate as a Commissioner to ascertain if there has been any demolition of
the property sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned
Commissioner has filed a report today and indicated that there has been
demolition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision
petitioner / defendant is no way responsible.
4. If res ipsa loquitur can be applied to evaluate the conduct of the parties
vis-a-vis the decision to be taken in this case, then the conduct of the
revision petitioner fits in aptly to deny her the relief she seeks in this
revision. It may be that the scope of the order falls within a very narrow
space. But this Court senses a strategy behind the very conduct. Courts
are not the casinos for the litigant to gamble upon, and poverty of the litigant
is no excuse when a litigant is expected to pass the litmus test of fairness
required of a litigant. Here in this case, this Court does not consider that the
revision petitioner deserves an opportunity.
5. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The Execution
Court is required to expedite the disposal of execution petition.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
ds
To:
1.The IV Additional City Civil Judge
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
C.R.P.No.1398 of 2019
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
