Madras High Court
Rajamony vs Samuel Dhas on 23 June, 2023
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 23.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
C.R.P(MD)No.2229 of 2014
Dhason (Died)
Rassalian (Died)
1.Rajamony
2.Selvaraj
3.Abraham
4.David
5.Thanka Bai
6.Shylaja
7.Vijila
8.Sanila
9.Robin ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Samuel Dhas
2.Johnson (Died)
3.Muthayyan
4.Thomson
Francis (Died)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
5.Marthammal
6.Vinod
7.Bazil Raj
8.Sanil Raj
9.Vinfer Raj ... Respondents
(Respondents 7 to 9 are brought on record as legal heirs
of the deceased second respondent vide Court order
dated 30.03.2023 made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.950 to 952 of
2018 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.953 to 955 of 2018 in
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 and 2230 of 2014)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the
order passed in I.A.No.815 of 2012 in O.S.No.155 of 2009 dated
22.04.2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.T.Arivukumar
for Mr.R.Manimaran
For R-1, R-3,
R-4 & R-7 to R-9 : Ms.Gayathri
for Ms.J.Anadhavalli
For R-5 & R-6 : No appearance
R-2 : Died
C.R.P(MD)No.2230 of 2014
Dhason (Died)
Rassalian (Died)
1.Rajamony
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
2.Selvaraj
3.Abraham
4.David
5.Thanka Bai
6.Shylaja
7.Vijila
8.Sanila
9.Robin ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Samuel Dhas
2.Johnson (Died)
3.Muthayyan
4.Thomson
Francis (Died)
5.Marthammal
6.Vinod
7.Bazil Raj
8.Sanil Raj
9.Vinfer Raj ... Respondents
(Respondents 7 to 9 are brought on record as legal heirs
of the deceased second respondent vide Court order
dated 30.03.2023 made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.950 to 952 of
2018 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.953 to 955 of 2018 in
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 and 2230 of 2014)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the
order passed in I.A.No.816 of 2012 in O.S.No.155 of 2009 dated
22.04.2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
For Petitioners : Mr.R.T.Arivukumar
for Mr.R.Manimaran
For R-1 to R-4 : Ms.Gayathri
for Ms.J.Anadhavalli
For R-5 & R-6 : No appearance
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed assailing the order passed by
the learned Principal District Munsif Court at Kuzhithurai in I.A.Nos.815
and 816 of 2012 in O.S.No.155 of 2009 by the petitioners / defendants. For
the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in
I.A.Nos.815 and 816 of 2012.
2. I.A.No.815 of 2012 was filed to condone the delay of 699 days in
restoring I.A.No.297 of 2010, which was filed to set aside the ex parte order
passed on 11.11.2009 in O.S.No.155 of 2009 and the said I.A was dismissed
for default on 13.07.2010.
3. I.A.No.816 of 2012 was filed to enlarge the time as far as in filing
I.A.No.815 of 2012 to restore the original suit. Counter was also filed in
both the I.A.Nos.815 and 816 of 2012 before the learned Principal District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
Munsif Court at Kuzhithurai. After elaborately dealing with both the
interlocutory applications, the learned Trial Court dismissed both the I.As
filed under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Heard Mr.R.T.Arivukumar for Mr.R.Manimaran, learned Counsel
for the revision petitioners and Ms.Gayathri for Ms.J.Anandhavalli, learned
Counsel for the respondents at length. The learned Counsel for the revision
petitioners elaborately pressed each and every other grounds taken by the
Civil Revision Petition.
5. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently
argued that the Civil Revision Petition ought to be dismissed relying on the
following judgments:
(i) In a similar issue dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Another
reported in (2007) 2 SCC 322 dated 15.01.2007, the relevant portion of
which is extracted as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
“5. We are unable to countenance the finding rendered
by the Sub-Judge and also the view taken by the High Court.
There is no dispute in regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing
the petition for setting aside the award. When a mandatory
provision is not complied with and when the delay is not
properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court
cannot condone the delay, only on the sympathetic ground. The
orders passed by the learned Sub-Judge and also by the High
Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has
been given to condone the inordinate delay of 3320 days. It is
well-considered principle of law that the delay cannot be
condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory,
sufficient and proper reason. Both the Courts have miserably
failed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this
Court in a catena of cases. We, therefore, have no other option
except to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Judge and as
affirmed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside both the
orders and allow this appeal.”
(ii) In a similar issue dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited Vs.
Nahar Exports Limited and Another reported in (2015) 1 SCC 680 dated
15.01.2007, the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
“25. We, therefore, find total lack of bona fides in its
approach and the impugned order of the High Court in having
condoned the delay in filing as well as refiling, of 9 days and
1727 days respectively, in a casual manner without giving any
reason, much less acceptable reasons, cannot therefore be
sustained. The appeals are allowed and the impugned order is
set aside. Direction to admit the appeals of the respondents in
RFAs Nos.268-88 of 2012 and 319 of 2012 is also set aside
and shall stand dismissed.”
6. The learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with both the I.A.s
and no documents were marked on the side of the petitioners / defendants.
However, the respondents / plaintiffs have entered into the witness box and
have marked three documents as R1, R2 and R3 and all those three
documents were pertaining to O.S.No.554 of 2008, a parallel case which
was conducted by these petitioners / defendants in the I Additional District
Munsif Court at Kuzhithurai. Though the petitioners contended that one of
them is being aged about 95 years and the other two about 100 years of age
and also the second and third respondents are being paralysed, the learned
Trial Court meticulously dealt with their pleadings and submissions and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
respondents / plaintiffs have diligently entered into the witness box and
deposed the evidence and marked necessary documents to prove that, at that
particular point of time, the petitioners / defendants herein were not at all
bed-ridden and they were hale and healthy, to such an extent that they
conducted a parallel suit which was preferred by them in the I Additional
District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and the learned Trial Court has
remarkably brought all those facts in the impugned order which is usefully
extracted as follows:
“7. The Respondents / plaintiffs agitated that the
petitioner / third defendant wantonly neglected this suit
because he is appearing and following yet another case in
O.S.No.554 of 2008. The respondents / plaintiffs strongly
contended that petitioner / defendants are appearing regularly
in the other case in I Additional District Munsif Court,
Kuzhithurai and they purposefully neglected this case.
Exhibits R1 to R3 have been marked on the side of
Respondents / plaintiffs. The petition filed by the petitioner /
third defendant as I.A.No.749 of 2010 in O.S.No.554 of 2008
in I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai dated
30.09.2010 has been brought to the notice of this Court. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
certified copy of the said petition and order has been marked
as Exhibit R1. It shows that this petitioner / third defendant
filed affidavit in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on 30.09.2010. Hence he
was not admitted in the hospital on those days. Another
certified copy of petition and order in I.A.No.40 of 2012 in
O.S.No.554 of 2008 has been marked as Exhibit R2 in which
these petitioners / defendants 1 to 3 are petitioners. The above
said petition and affidavit has been filed on 12.01.2012 before
filing of five months prior to these petitions. These exhibits
Exhibits R1 and R2 clearly prove that this petitioner / third
defendant and his brothers have conducted yet another case in
I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai but willfully
neglected the proceedings of this case.
9. Considering Exhibits R1 and R2 and other Court
records this Court finds that the petitioners / defendants are
not vigilante enough to proceed the case. They were negligent
in filing of each and every petition. They sought for
condonation of 699 days delay without giving any proper
reason. It shows that they are purposefully neglecting the
proceedings of this case with ulterior motive. As per amended
CPC, each and every day of delay has to be explained to the
satisfaction of this Court. But the petitioners / defendants has
not given proper explanation for the single day of delay.
Further this Court finds that the petitioners / defendants have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
been prosecuting yet another case in I Additional District
Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai in those 699 days. It shows that
they are not interested to follow this case. This Court finds that
the petitioner / defendants filed these petitions only because
the respondent / plaintiff initiated EP proceedings. Hence this
Court does not find any merit in these petitions.”
7. On perusal of the records, it is clear that the original suit is of the
year 2009 and by the strength of the stay which has been granted by this
Court in this Civil Revision Petition, the plaintiffs are meticulously
prevented by the defendants from adjudicating the case before the learned
Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and dispose the same.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is
of the considered view that the pendency of these two civil revision
petitions before this Court had caused inordinate delay of more than 13
years in adjudicating the said original suit in O.S.No.155 of 2009. Hence,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed diligently by the
learned Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai in both the I.A.Nos.
815 and 816 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
9. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition stands closed.
23.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
BTR
To
1.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Kuzhithurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Record Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
BTR
Order made in
C.R.P(MD)Nos.2229 & 2230 of 2014
23.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
