Madras High Court
Pappathi vs The National Highways Authority on 23 November, 2023
Author: J. Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J. Sathya Narayana Prasad
1 C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.275 & 276 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.275 & 276 of 2021
1. Pappathi
2. Saravanan
3. Chandra
4. Senthil Kumar ...
Petitioners
Vs.
1. The National Highways Authority
of India Limited
Rep. by its Chairman
G5 & 6 Sector 10 Dwarka
New Delhi – 110 075
2. The Special District Revenue Officer
Land Acquisition N.H.6, 46 & 47
Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri District
Salem.
3. The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition N.H.No.47 Unit 3
Kondalampaty Bye – pass
Salem – 10. ... Respondents
Common Prayer:- These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and
final order dated 25.09.2019 made in I.A.Nos.91 & 92 of 2018 in Un-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.275 & 276 of 2021
numbered A.S.[S.R.No.2136 of 2018] on the file of the Principal District
Court, Salem.
For Petitioners : Mrs. Zeenath Begum
in both CRPs
For Respondents :
Mr.Sv.Srinivasan for R1
Mr.V.Jeeva Giridharan
for R2 & R3
in both CRPs
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside the fair
and final order dated 25.09.2019 made in I.A.Nos.91 & 92 of 2018 in
Un-numbered A.S.[S.R.No.2136 of 2018] on the file of the Principal
District Court, Salem.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.287 of
2011 praying the Court to direct the respondents/defendants to pay suit
amount to the plaintiffs with future interest at the rate of 24% on the suit
amount from the date of the suit till realisation. Against the said judgment
dated 27.11.2013 passed by the II Additional Sub Court, Salem, the
petitioner preferred I.A.Nos.91 & 92 of 2018 in unnumbered
A.S.(Sr.No.2136 of 2018) to condone the delay of 358 days and 467 days
respectively in representing the appeal. I.A.No.91 & 92 of 2018 was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed by the District Court, Salem dated 25.09.2019.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
appeal was filed against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional
Subordinate Judge, Salem in O.S.No.287 of 2011. The said appeal was
returned for rectification and the returned case bundle got mistakenly
mingled with the other case bundles and hence there was a delay of 358
days and 467 days respectively caused in representing the appeal. Hence
the petitioners/plaintiffs have come forward with the present Civil
Revision Petitions to set aside the fair and final order dated 25.09.2019
made in I.A.Nos.91 & 92 of 2018 in unnumbered A.S.(Sr.No.2136 of
2018) on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
the lower Court has passed the decree and judgment on 27.11.2013 in
O.S.No.287 of 2011 but the petitioners have filed the petition after a
lapse of 5 years through Junior Advocate and the petitioners have not
explained the reason for the delay of 5 years.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.287 of 2011
before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem to direct the defendants
to pay suit amount to the plaintiffs with future interest at the rate of 24%
on the suit amount from the date of the suit till realisation. The appeal
was filed on 10.02.2014 as against the judgment passed by the learned II
Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in O.S.No.287 of 2011. The said
appeal was returned for rectification. Sufficient reasons have not been
stated in the affidavit for the delay except stating that the said appeal was
returned for rectification and the returned case bundle got mistakenly
mingled with the other case bundles and hence there was a delay of 358
days and 467 days respectively caused in the representation of the appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that these
applications may be allowed on terms. At this juncture, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents also agreed for the same.
7. Considering the above submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the facts and circumstances, and since the
delay is on a higher side, the delay of 358 days and 467 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respectively in representing the appeal is condoned and the
application in I.A.Nos.91 & 92 of 2019 is allowed on condition that
the petitioners pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only)
to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners
are at liberty to pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents before this Court in these Civil Revision Petitions within
a stipulated time.
8. These civil revision petitions are disposed of with the above
direction and observation. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Index : No 23.11.2023
Internet : Yes
dpq
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Salem.
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.275 &
276 of 2021
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
