Madras High Court
Poolammal vs Lakshmi on 11 October, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.887 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P(MD) No.887 of 2019
Poolammal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Lakshmi
2. Minor Esakkimuthu ...Respondents
(Minor second respondent represented through
his mother and guardian the first respondent)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed
in I.A.No.12 of 2017 in Un registered Appeal Suit on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, dated 27.03.2019 by
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.887 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr. T. Selvan
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order
dated 27.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.12 of 2017 in Un registered
Appeal Suit on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Tirunelveli.
2. Heard, Mr.T.Selvan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
3. As this Civil Revision Petition is pertaining to the
year 2019, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same, basing on
the material available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.887 of 2019
4. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.665
of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court,
Tirunelveli, seeking for declaration and recovery of possession. The
said suit was dismissed by its decree and judgment, dated
09.03.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Principal Subordinate Judge, on 06.06.2005 within
the prescribed time of limitation. The said appeal was returned with
certain objections. The petitioner/appellant could not resubmit the
same within the time prescribed for re-submission. Due to the
reason that the returned bundle was mixed with other bundles and
the petitioner was also suffering from jaundice from July 2010
onwards, for which she was taking treatment and due to that reason,
she could not able to contact her Advocate. Thereafter, the petitioner
learnt that the Advocate Clerk of the petitioner's counsel in the
Appellate Court did not resubmit the appeal file within the time and
due to that reason, the delay of 2400 days occurred in representing
the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.887 of 2019
5. On consideration of the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and upon careful perusal of the grounds
raised in this Civil Revision Petition for the delay occurred in
representing the appeal, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner
has shown sufficient cause to consider the delay in representation of
the appeal.
6. In view of the fact that the appeal presented within the
time prescribed under the limitation. However, considering the fact
that there is a delay of 2400 days in representing the appeal, in our
considered view, it can be condoned on certain conditions, in the
interest of justice.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed
and the order under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is set
aside, on condition of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) to the defendants in the suit within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.887 of 2019
payment the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, is
directed to take the appeal on record.
9. No costs.
11.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Principal Subordinate Court,
Tirunelveli,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.887 of 2019
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
RM
C.R.P(MD) No.887 of 2019
11.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
