Veerabadiran vs Lakshminarayanan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7840 Mad

                                                                                    C.R.P.(NPD) No.1575 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 07.07.2023

                                                          CORAM :

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                                 C.R.P.(NPD)No.1575 of 2017
                                                  and C.M.P.No.7358 of 2017


                     Veerabadiran                                               ... Petitioner

                                                                v.

                     P.K.Shahul Hameed                                          ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

                     against the Fair and Decretal order dated 23.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.60

                     of 2016 in O.S.No.82 of 2008 by the learned District Munsif cum

                     Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram.


                                              For Petitioner:        Ms.G.Sridevi

                                              For Respondent:        No Appearance

                                                          ORDER

The learned trial Judge by way of an order in I.A.No.60 of 2016 in

O.S.No.82 of 2008 dated 23.11.2016 has allowed the application filed

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

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1575 of 2017

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to restore the suit which had been

dismissed for default on 14.08.2012. The respondent as plaintiff had filed

a suit for bare injunction as against the petitioner/defendant.

2.The said suit was posted on the list on 14.08.2012 and since the

plaintiff had to go to Saudi Arabia, he was not present in Court.

Consequently, the suit was dismissed for default. According to him, he

claims to have purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale

deed on 19.06.2008 and had also mutated the revenue records in his

name. On the strength of the sale deed and revenue records, he claims

title and possession of the property. The reason he has given is he was

not in this country at all and had gone abroad.

3.The learned Judge considering all the facts and circumstances

has condoned the delay. As against the condonation of delay, the scope

of interference in revision is very limited vide the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamoorthy

(1998 7 SCC 123). The delay having been condoned on payment of cost,

I am not inclined to interfere with the same. This civil revision petition is

dismissed. The Court is directed to take up the application under Order 9

Rule 9 and allow the same. Further, the suit being of the year 2008, the

trial Court is requested to complete the entire proceedings within six https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1575 of 2017

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.07.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No vs

To

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram.

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

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1575 of 2017

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

vs

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1575 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.7358 of 2017

07.07.2023

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