V.Krishnan (Died) vs Thangapandi (Died)
2023 Latest Caselaw 13300 Mad

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 27.09.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                              CRP.No.620 of 2009

                  1.V.Krishnan (died)
                  2.Sundara Kannan
                  3.K.Mani
                  4.S.Kalaiselvi
                  5.M.Sasikala
                  6.M.Harini
                  7.M.Monika
                  8.V.Revathi                                                    ... Petitioners

                     (1st petitioner died. Petitioners 3 to 8 are brought on
                      record as LRS of the deceased first petitioner vide
                      Court order dated 27.09.2023 made in C.M.P.No.22568,
                      22570 and 22572 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.620 of 2009)

                                                       Vs
                  1.Thangapandi (died)
                  2.Sundarakannan
                  3.M.Krishnaveni
                  4.K.Vijayakumari
                  5.L.M.Murugesan
                  6.G.Muthuselvi
                  7.L.Venkatesan                                               ... Respondents

                     (Sole respondent died. Respondents 2 to 7 are brought on
                      record as LRS of the deceased sole respondent vide Court
                      order dated 27.09.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.22573 to 22575 of 2023)



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                  1/4
                  PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, against
                  the fair and decretal order dated 04.04.2006 made in I.A.No.21365 of 2005
                  in I.A.No.21366 of 2005 in O.S.No.3148 of 1986 on the file of the XV
                  Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.


                                  For Petitioners : Mr.N.Srinivasalu
                                  For Respondents : Mr.P.C.Harikumar


                                                    ORDER

This revision arises against an order of dismissing an application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. O.S.No.3148 of 1986 was presented

before the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit is one for

recovery of possession. Prior to the suit, between the very same parties,

R.C.O.P was filed in HRC.No.3313 of 1978 on the file of XII Court of Small

Causes, Chennai, which was subsequently transferred to the learned District

Munsif, Poonamallee. Since the Rent Control petition was dismissed, the

present suit came to be filed. A written statement was filed on 16.10.1986.

From 1986 till 14.11.2003, the suit was languishing without any progress.

The affidavit to condone the delay itself concedes that several opportunities

were given to the defendants, but the defendants did not appear before the

Court at all. Being left with no other option, the Court proceeded to pass an

ex-parte judgment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. To set aside the same, an application was presented in I.A.No.21365

of 2005. The reason given in the said application is that the counsel did not

inform the stage of the case to the defendants. Apart from this reasoning, no

other reason has been given for condoning the delay of 690 days in filing the

application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

3. I have gone through the affidavit and I do not find any reason to

condone the enormous delay of 690 days. When the litigation is pending

between the parties from 1978, it is expected that the party would follow up

the case, by not merely relying upon only the statement of the lawyer. The

suit having gone to an ex-parte decree, the petitioner is now blaming his

lawyer for the purpose of condonation of delay. That is not a sufficient cause

and it has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. I do not find any

illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.

4. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

27.09.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order vkr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.,

vkr

To :

The XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

CRP.No.620 of 2009

27.09.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis