Madras High Court
Saravanakumar vs Suresh on 7 September, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.962 of 2016
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.4817, 11515 of 2016 and 10066 of 2017
1. Saravanakumar
2. Muthulakshmi ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 and 2/
Plaintiffs
-vs-
1. Suresh
... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/
3rd Defendant
2. Palanichamy Gounder (Died)
3. Chellammal
4. Kavipraba
5. Shanmugapriya
6. Priyanga
... Respondents 2 to 6/
Respondents 1 to 5/Defendants 1 to 6
7. Gnanagurusamy ... Proposed respondent
(R7 – Brought on record as legal heir of the
deceased R2 vide order of this Court dated
08.02.2018 made in C.M.P(MD) No.2391 of
2017 in C.R.P(MD) No.962 of 2016)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.03.2016
passed in I.A.No.64 of 2016 in O.S.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar – for R1
: Mr.G.Arjunan – for R4
: No appearance – for R3, R5 and R6
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal
order dated 22.03.2016 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2016 in O.S.No.10 of 2014 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. The 1st respondent is the 3rd
defendant, and the respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 6
before the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the
litigative status before the trial Court.
4. It appears from the records that the 3rd defendant/1st respondent had
moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the
delay of 416 days. The reason assigned by the 3 rd defendant to set aside the ex
parte decree is that he was suffering from jaundice and he was taking local
treatment. He would further submit that since he was in bed rest for
sometimes, he was not in a position to file an application to set aside the ex
parte decree well in advance. In the meanwhile, there was a delay of 416
days. Hence, he prayed to condone the delay.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners
strongly objected, the Court below having considered the submissions on
either side and also upon the ground that the valuable rights of the parties
could only be adjudicated after the full trial, allowed the delay condonation
application. Aggrieved with the order, the plaintiffs before the Court below is
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
6. While perusing the suit, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration
and for permanent injunction. As rightly observed by the Court below, such
valuable rights between the parties cannot be allowed to be decided in an ex-
parte manner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the reasons
assigned by the 3rd defendant/1st respondent are not believable. However, this
Court is of the view that in its wisdom, the Court below has believed the
reasons assigned by the 3rd defendant and has allowed the delay condonation
application. If once the Court below exercised it's discretion positively, then
the revisional Court shall be slow in interfering the order of the Court below,
unless the same is perverse. This Court could not see any perversity in the
order of the Court below.
8. It is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR-1998-SC-3222 (N.BalaKrishnan V. Krishnamoorthy). The
relevant paragraph No.9 is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
“9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a
matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the
Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be
exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit.
Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of
the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of
acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases
delay of very long range can be condoned as the
explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court
accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of
positive exercise of discretion and normally the
superior court should not disturb such finding, much
less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of
discretion was on whole untenable grounds or
arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when
the first cut refuses to condone the dela. In such cases,
the superior cut would be free to consider the cause
shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such
superior court to come to its own finding even
untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of
the Court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The District Munsif Court,
Oddanchathiram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.962 of 2016
07.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
