Madras High Court
R.Pushparani vs A.Kannatty on 14 August, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11347 of 2018
R.Pushparani ...Petitioner /Respondent /Plaintiff
Vs.
A.Kannatty ... Respondent /Petitioner/ 2nd defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, passed in I.A.
No.1724 of 2014 in O.S.No.333 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional
Sub-Court, Trichirappalli, dated 14.02.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner is the respondent / plaintiff and the
respondent herein is the petitioner / second defendant before the Court
below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
she filed an application for the relief of partition and for redition of
accounts.
3. It appears that, an exparte decree was passed on
26.09.2012. Against which, an application for condonation of delay was
filed by the respondent / second defendant, which was allowed by the
Court below, on 14.02.2018. Aggrieved with the order, the instant Civil
Revision Petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff would
submit that the delay of 692 days has not been explained and would also
further submit that the reason for such delay has been mentioned as he
was suffering from fever. Even, for that reason, no document has been
filed. Therefore, the learned counsel would vehemently contend that the
very order passed by the Court below in allowing the condonation
application is perverse and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
5. Despite name printed, no one appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The one and the only submission put forth by the
respondent / petitioner is that he has not substantiated, his defence
through the document.
8. From the perusal of the affidavit, the respondent herein
has stated that when the matter was posted on 26.09.2012, for filing of
the written statement, she could not file the same as she was suffering
from Viral fever. She has filed an application on 17.10.2012 itself, to set
aside the exparte decree. However the same was returned due to some
clerical error. And when she was representing the same, there was a
delay of 692 days. On perusal of the petition as rightly observed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner there is a 692 days delay in filing
application to set aside the exparte decree. However, if we go by the
averment made by the petitioner, it was only the delay in representation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
9. To contradict such averment, the petitioner has not put
forth any document. It is pertinent to mention here that the condonation
of delay in representation is matter between the Court and the petitioner.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner invite the attention of this
Court in respect of the prayer, where it has been stated that there was a
delay of 692 days in filing the set aside petition.
10. On perusal of the affidavit, this Court could able to see
filing of an application immediately from the exparte decree. Having
considered all these aspects, it appears that the Court below allowed the
application on payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that when ever the Court
below has exercised its discretion affirmatively under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, then the revisional Court can not interfere with the same.
It is also relevant to refer, this being the suit for partition, that too
between the mother and her children, this Court could not find any
perversity in the order passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
12. It is useful to refer the case of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of BalaKrishnan V. Krishnamoorthy, reported in
AIR-1998-SC-3222. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows-
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of
parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object
of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused
by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span
for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so
suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never
revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up
necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each
remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead
to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of
limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in
the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the
general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of
limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties.
They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every
legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed
period of time.
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no
ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the
instant Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the suit is of the year 2011 and prayed for an early
disposal.
15. Having considered the year of the suit, this Court deems
it appropriate to give a direction to the Court below to dispose of the suit
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as
to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
To
1.The II Additional Sub-Court,
Trichirappalli.
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
Ls
C.R.P(MD)No.2576 of 2018
14.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
