Madras High Court
Impthias vs M/S.Fareediya Cashew Company on 1 April, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P.(MD).No.1092 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.1092 of 2019
Impthias
S/o. Mohideen Kunju
Proprietor of Rukiya Cashew Company,
Kilikkolloor P.O,
Kollam,
Kerala State. ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Plaintiff
-vs-
1. M/s.Fareediya Cashew Company,
Having its registered office at,
Karicode, Kollam,
Kerala State,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
the second respondent.
2. Rasheed
3. Shajakhan
4. Nazar ... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.09.2018 in
E.A.No.258 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 1999 on the file of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.1092 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Thambi
For Respondents :Mr.M.P.Senthil
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the decree holder
in a suit for recovery of money challenging the order, wherein the application
filed by the decree holder for condoning the delay of 1368 days in
representing the Execution Petition has been dismissed.
2. The Revision Petitioner herein had obtained a decree in O.S.No.127
of 1999 on 31.10.2000 for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,965/- towards the
principal amount and a sum of Rs.12,747/- towards interest at the rate of 18%
per annum from the date of filing of the suit. The decree holder had filed
Execution Petition on 15.09.2009. Thereafter, the Execution Petition was
returned on 05.04.2010 and it was represented. For the second time, the
execution petition was returned on 07.06.2010. thereafter, the execution
petition was represented on 05.04.2014 along with E.A.No.258 of 2014 to
condone the delay of 1368 days in representing the execution petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. A perusal of the affidavit in E.A.No.258 of 2014 reveals that the
decree holder is permanently residing at Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State
and he has solely relied upon the Advocates' clerk who was handling the case
bundle. He further stated that the said Advocate Clerk had undergone
treatment and surgery for cancer in a private hospital at Thiruvananthapuram.
Hence, he could not attend the Advocate Office regularly. The decree holder
was under the impression that the Execution Petition was numbered and the
same was pending. However, he later came to know that the returned
Execution Petition has got misplaced with other case bundles and it was
traced out an later represented on 05.04.2014.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended
that considering the fact that the petitioner was permanently residing at
Thiruvananthapuram and he was not in a position to regularly check his
counsel at Kuzhithurai, the delay may be condoned.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/judgment debtors had contended that as a decree holder, the
petitioner ought to have regularly followed of the matter with his counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The execution petition has been returned for rectification of certain defects.
The Advocate is solely responsible for rectification of the said defects and for
representing the same before the Court in time. Therefore, the reasons
assigned by the decree holder for the delay of 1368 days is not acceptable.
6. The Execution Court after considering the submissions made on
either side had disbelieved the reasons assigned for the delay and considering
the length of delay the said application has been dismissed. Challenging the
same, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
7. The decree was passed in October 2000. The first execution petition
has been filed on 15.09.2009. Though the execution petition was returned
twice, it was represented only on 05.04.2014. Considering the reasons
assigned in the affidavit that the Advocate clerk was handling the case
bundle, he was affected with cancer and he has undergone treatment and
surgery at Thiruvananthapuram Hospital, this Court is inclined to condone the
delay with a condition that the plaintiff would not be entitled to receive any
interest for the period between 15.09.2009 and 05.04.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In view of the above said facts, the order passed by the Sub Court,
Kuzhithurai (Execution Court) in E.A.No.258 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 1999
dated 20.09.2018 is hereby set aside and E.A.No.258 of 2014 is allowed. The
Execution Court is directed to number the Execution Petition and pass orders
on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the decree holder,
in case, if the execution petition is allowed, is not entitled to receive any
interest for the period from 15.09.2009 to 05.04.2014.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
01.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Sub Court,
Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
