Madras High Court
V.Joshep … vs V.Amalraj on 25 September, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
C.R.P.NPD.No.2947 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.NPD.No.2947 of 2024
V.Joshep … Petitioner
Vs
V.Amalraj ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, against the Fair and Decretal Order made in I.A.No.1 of
2021 in A.S.Sr.No.4619 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at
Perambalur dated 30.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Thenmozhi
For Respondent : Mr.G.Elamurugan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the fair and
decretal order, dated 30.04.2024 in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in A.S.Sr.No.4619 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Perambalur.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.201 of 2019 on the file of
the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Veppathattai. The suit came to
be dismissed on 05.03.2020. There was a delay of 10 days in filing the copy
application. The judgment and decree was delivered on 01.10.2020. It is
the case of the petitioner that due to Covid-19 restrictions and personal
illness, he could not file the appeal in time and thereby there had been a
delay of 342 days in filing the appeal.
3. The respondent had filed a counter, contending that the
petitioner/plaintiff, after dismissal of the suit, had cleverly approached the
appellate Court and sought for return of the documents stating that he
would not file any appeal, in order to defeat the rights of the
respondent/defendant. Thereafter, based on the documents returned by the
Court, the petitioner/plaintiff had executed a registered settlement deed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
favour of his wife, Karmel Mary on 06.09.2021 before the Sub Registrar,
Veppanthattai and the same was registered as Document No.2631 of 2021.
He further submitted that no other materials had been filed before the
concerned Court to prove that he had suffered illness. The appellate Court,
finding that the petitioner/plaintiff had not shown any sufficient cause and
that the petitioner had executed a settlement deed on 06.09.2021 during the
relevant period in favour of his wife, had dismissed the petition, against
which, the revision has been filed by the plaintiff.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the
order passed in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous
Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 10.01.2022, held that the period
from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of
limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and that the remaining period has to
be calculated for the purpose of filing any appeal. In this case, if the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 is excluded, it is clear that the appeal has
been filed within time. However, the appellate Court has gone into merits
of the case and had erroneously dismissed the petition on 30.04.2024 and
thereby, he seeks to set aside the said order.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant
would submit that the suit came to be dismissed on 05.03.2020 and the
appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days, whereas the petitioner had
not filed the appeal within 30 days. The petitioner had approached the trial
Court and by contending that he would not file any appeal and had taken
return of the original documents that were produced during the trial and
subsequently on 06.09.2021, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of
his wife. He would further submit that the appellate Court held that the
petitioner/plaintiff has not filed any proof to show that he was prevented
from filing any appeal in time and further finding that during the relevant
period, he had executed a settlement deed, dated 06.09.2021 in favour of his
wife by taking return of the document, and thereby had attempted to defeat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the rights of the respondent/defendant and also to create further
encumbrances, had rightly dismissed the petition. In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38
[Ramjas Foundation and another Vs. Union of India and Others]. He
would further submit that the petitioner has come to Court with unclean
hands and thereby, he would seek to dismiss the revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner/plaintiff
has not properly explained the delay in respect of the period between
15.03.2021 and 16.12.2021. He has also not produced any acceptable
document like medical records before the Court below, to prove his illness.
The petitioner/plaintiff had approached the Court and sought for return of
the original documents, stating that he had no intention to file any appeal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whereas after receiving the documents from the Court below, he had
executed a settlement in favour of his wife. This conduct of the
petitioner/plaintiff is highly reprehensible. Moreover, as rightly contended
by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, the petitioner/plaintiff,
while taking return of the original document from the trial Court, had made
an endorsement that he is not preferring any appeal and thereby he had also
relinquished his right to file an appeal. The Court below rightly held that
the petitioner/plaintiff has not shown any sufficient cause to condone the
delay in filing the appeal.
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
25.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
srn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,
srn
To
1. The Subordinate Judge at Perambalur
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
25.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
