Madras High Court
N.S.Loganathan vs Rahimunnissa on 12 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.11985 of 2019
N.G.Subramani (Died)
1.N.S.Loganathan
2.N.S.Ravi .. Petitioners
vs
1.Rahimunnissa
2.Mallikunnisa
3.S.K.Abdulla Sheriff
4.Bathunissa Begam
5.Fatima Bee
6.Noorinissa
7.D.K.Fathima
8.Raheem Sheriff
9.Kareem Sheriff
10.Hakeem Sheriff
11.Sakthithunnissa
12.Abithunnisa
13.The Tahsildar
Walaja Taluk Office,
Walajapet.
14.The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the fair and decretal order dated 10.04.2018 made in
I.A.No.82 of 2016 in A.S.No.Nil of 2016 on the file of the Court of
Principal District Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
For Petitioners : Ms.Sri Ranjani
for Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.Jeeva Kuralamudhu
for Mr.Adithya Varadarajan
for R9
Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, AGP (CS)
for R13 & R14
R3 died – steps due
R5, & R6 – NA
R2,R7,R8,R10,R11,R12- NRN
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed in
I.A.No. 82 of 2016 in un-numbered A.S.No. Nil of 2016 dated
10.04.2018.
2. The petitioners before me are the plaintiffs in the suit.
The suit had been filed for declaration of title and for mandatory
injunction and permanent injunction. In this suit, an application was
taken out for rejection of plaint in I.A.No.222 of 2013. The said
application was allowed on 18.07.2014. Against which, the un-
numbered appeal was preferred in the year 2016. By the time the
appeal was filed as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.16
of 2013, 600 days had gone by. Therefore, to condone the delay
I.A.No.82 of 2016 was presented. In and by an order dated
10.04.2018, the said application came to be dismissed. Aggrieved
over the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
3. Heard Ms.Sri Ranjani, learned counsel for
Mr.T.P.Prabakaran and Mr.Jeeva Kuralamudhu, learned counsel for
Mr.Adithya Varadarajan, learned counsel the respondent.
4. I have gone through the records and perused the
papers placed before this Court.
5. It is not in dispute that the plaint which had been filed
for declaration of title and for injunction had been rejected.
Unfortunately for the petitioners, his counsel did not apply for
certified copies in time. It was only later the certified copies were
made available to the party. Therefore, the party had to engage a
lawyer from Vellore in order to present the appeal. The petitioner
has averred that the counsel, who conducted the matter at Ranipet
did not handover the papers in time and, therefore, the petitioner
was not in a position to present the appeal.
6. It is too well settled that without the certified copies of
the judgment and decree, an appeal cannot be maintained.
Therefore, necessarily a party will have to depend upon his or her
counsel for the purpose of obtaining the certified copies. The delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
in obtaining certified copies by the counsel cannot be laid at the
doors of the party. Apart from that, the petitioner had also pleaded
that his wife was taking treatment at Kovai Medical Centre in
Coimbatore, a city about 300 kms away from Vellore. The reasons
given by the petitioner appear to me to be sufficient cause.
7. Unfortunately, the lower appellate court has dismissed
the application stating that the petitioner has not examined the
counsel in order to prove that point. The rift between the client and
lawyer cannot be proved by way of evidence. In any event, these
are professional matters for which the petitioner's erstwhile counsel
cannot be summoned and examined in Court. Therefore, while
setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.82 of 2016 dated
10.04.2018, I feel the petitioners will have to be imposed with
heavy cost as compensation to the contesting respondents.
Therefore, the following order is passed:-
(i) The petitioner shall pay a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to the contesting respondent within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
(ii) On proof of production of such
payment, the learned Principal District Judge is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
requested to take up the appeal and number
the same.
(iii) On numbering the appeal, the same
shall be disposed of within a period of four
months from the date of such restoration.
(iv) It is made clear in case the cost
ordered is not paid, the Civil Revision Petition
will stand dismissed automatically.
8. With the above direction, this civil revision petition
stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
12.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
1.The Tahsildar
Walaja Taluk Office,
Walajapet.
2.The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The Principal District Judge, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ssm
C.R.P.No.1822 of 2019
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
