Madras High Court
V.P.Murugesan vs M.Nagulsamy on 1 April, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.998 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.998 of 2019
V.P.Murugesan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Appellant/Plaintiff
-vs-
M.Nagulsamy
... Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.11.2017 passed
in I.A.No.245 of 2016 in A.S.S.R.No.3046 of 2016 on the file of the Principal
District Court, Karur.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondent :Mr.K.Govindarajan
for Mr.B.Ponnu Pandi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.998 of 2019
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the appellant in
the first appeal challenging the order passed by the first appellate Court
rejecting the application to condone the delay of 1495 days in filing the first
appeal.
2. The revision petitioner herein as the plaintiff has filed a suit in
O.S.No.48 of 2009 before the Additional Sub-Court, Karur for recovery of a
sum of Rs.4,99,900/- on the basis of a Pronote, dated 05.04.2006. After
contest, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, on 28.10.2011. The
revision petitioner had filed the first appeal before the Principal District
Court, Karur, on 21.07.2016 with a delay of 1495 days. The petitioner had
filed I.A.No.245 of 2016 to condone the said delay. A perusal of the affidavit
indicates that he was aware of the date of delivery of the judgment of the trial
Court. However, he was awaiting letters from his counsel with regard to
furnishing of the certified copies of the said judgment and decree. Since the
petitioner did not receive any letter from his counsel, he came to know about
the same only when he contacted the counsel in 4th week of April 2016 with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.998 of 2019
regard to the connected proceedings. He further contended that he was
affected from jaundice from 21.04.2016 to 20.07.2016 and he was taking
native treatment. Hence, he had prayed for condoning the delay.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that
during the same period, the petitioner had received the summons and
appeared before the Court in another suit in O.S.No.48 of 2009. Therefore,
the reasons assigned by the appellant/revision petitioner are not believable.
4. A perusal of the records, clearly indicate that the petitioner was
aware of the date of delivery of the judgment of the trial Court. Thereafter, the
petitioner has taken more than four years to file the appeal before the first
appellate Court. Though the petitioner was aware of the delivery of the
judgment by the trial Court, the petitioner has not chosen to contact his
counsel as to verify whether the certified copies of the judgment and decree
are ready or not? Further, the reason assigned by the petitioner that he was
suffering from jaundice for the period of three months is also not supported
any documents. Viewing from any angle, this Court did not find any merit and
the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for condoning the delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.998 of 2019
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
01.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Principal District Court,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.998 of 2019
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.998 of 2019
01.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
