Madras High Court
E.Malayandi vs M.N.Aravindan on 13 March, 2023
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.2709 of 2023
1.E.Malayandi
2.E.Paramasivam
3.E.Dharmar
4.E.S.Rajkumar ... Petitioners/Petitioners1,3,4&6/
Appellants1,3,4&6/Defendants
Vs.
1.M.N.Aravindan
2.M.S.Dasaradharaja
3.Lalithadevi ... Respondents/Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.(Unnumbered)2020,
(CNR.No.TNTH030000552020), on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge
Court, Theni, dated 31.01.2023 and begs to allow the same as prayed for.
For petitioners : Mr.K.Vamanan
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order
passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.(Unnumbered)2020,
(CNR.No.TNTH030000552020), on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
Court, Theni, dated 31.01.2023
2.The petitioners has filed this petition against the impugned order
dated 31.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in unnumbered A.S.No........ of 2020
filed for condoning the delay in 2505 days in filing the appeal against the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 29.01.2013 in O.S.No.416 of
2016 before the District Munsif, Theni. The relevant portion of the order
reads as under:-
“5.Per contra, it was contended by the respondent that
the above application is not maintainable either in law or in
facts and liable to be dismissed and further the suit in O.S.No.
416 of 2006 has been decreed on 29.01.2013. As agaist the
said judgment the petitioners have disturbed and interfered
within the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
property of the respondent and hence a notice has been issued
to the petitioners on 23.05.2019 and the same was received by
the petitioners and on 03.06.2019 a reply notice have been
sent by making false contentions. Hence, the respondent has
filed a contempt petition to arrest the petitioner through court
amin in E.P.No.37 of 2019. The reasons stated by the
petitioner for the delay of 2505 days is not acceptable in
nature. Further the petitioner has not given the particulars
regarding the treatment taken for dengue fever. Since the
reason stated by the petitioner is not acceptable in nature the
above application is liable to be dismissed. The
respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.416 o 2006
seeking the relief of permanent and Mandatory injunction in
respect of the suit properties on the file of District Munsif,
Theni. The said suit was decreed on 29.01.2013. Now, the
present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/defendants
along with an application to condone the delay of 2505 days
in filing the appeal. It was stated by the petitioner/defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
that after getting the copy of decree and judgment all
confusion arose in their family regarding the filing of appeal
and all of them suffer from virus fever which was developed
as dengue fever and thus they could not be able to file the
appeal with in the time. On perusal of the affidavit filed by
the petitioner it I found that out of 6 petitioners, 2 of them
died and 4 petitioners have preferred the appeal before this
Court. The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of
this Petition says that all the petitioners was suffering from
dengue fever and was unable to contact their counsel
immediately and confusion arose in their family regarding the
filing of the appeal. Unsubstantiated reasons or reasons
vaguely stated, cannot be a ground to condone and enormous
delay in filing the appeal. The Rule is to file the appeal with
in the period of limitation. The reasons for condoning the
huge delay must be based on sound legal principles.
Mechanical approach in condonation of delay is
impermissible.. In the case on hand there is a delay of 2050
days in filing the appeal. Thus huge delay cannot be
condoned based on certain flimsy or unsubstantiated reasons.
Even if one petitioner is not well, there are other three
petitioners who all were in a position to file an appeal.
Further no medical records have been produced to prove that
they were under medical treatment. Further, the delay of 2505
days have not been explained properly and the reasons stated
are neither candid nor convincing.
6.In view of the above said reasons, and also the fact
that the petitioners has not established any acceptable reason
for the purpose of condoning the delay of 2505 days this
Court is not inclined to condone the delay and thus same is
liable to be dismissed.”
3.Though the petitioners were not required to give details of the delay
on day-to-day basis nevertheless the petitioners were expected to give the
sufficient reasons to the Court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. The delay in filing the appeal is huge running to 2505
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
days and no proper explanation was given by the petitioners for condoning
the delay.
4.In my view, the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.
(Unnumbered)2020, (CNR.No.TNTH030000552020), on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge Court, Theni, dated 31.01.2023 does not warrant
any interference by this Court.
5.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
dss
To
1.The Subordinate Judge Court,
Theni.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN,J.
dss
C.R.P(MD).No.581 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.2709 of 2023
13.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
