Annakili (Died) ...Nil/1St vs Amutha
2025 Latest Caselaw 2810 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2810 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2025

Madras High Court

Annakili (Died) ...Nil/1St vs Amutha on 14 February, 2025

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                               C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1383 of 2023




                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 14.02.2025

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                        C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1383 of 2023
                                                     and
                                           C.M.P(MD)No.6860 of 2023


                Annakili (Died)                    ...Nil/1st Petitioner/1st Appellant

                Anandamohan,
                Represented through his wife and Power Agent,
                Nirmala.                       ...Petitioner/Petitioner/2nd Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                1.Amutha
                2.Muthulingaselvi
                3.Adhikesavan

                (Notice to R2 is dispense with as R2 was set
                exparte before the trial Court, vide Court order
                dated 22.01.2025 made in CRP(MD)No.1383 of 2023)
                                                   ...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

                PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
                India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 20.03.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of
                2019 in A.S.No.45 of 2011 on the file of Sub Court, Valliyoor.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/6
                                                                            C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1383 of 2023


                                      For Petitioners    : Mr.V.George Raja

                                      For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam for R1
                                                        Mr.S.R.Anbarasu for R3


                                                    ORDER

The appellants in A.S.No.45 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court,

Valliyoor, are the revision petitioners herein.

2.The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.350 of 2004, on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, for the relief of partition and

separate possession. The above said suit was decreed on 16.12.2010. The

defendants 1 and 2 have preferred A.S.No.45 of 2011 before Sub Court,

Valliyoor.

3.Pending appeal, the defendants/appellants have filed I.A.No.235 of

2016 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. to receive the additional documents.

The said application was posted along with an appeal.

4.The arguments in the appeal were heard 28.11.2016 and it was posted

for judgment on 06.12.2016. However, the judgment was not delivered and it

was again re-posted to 16.02.2016. The appellate Court has not delivered the

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

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1383 of 2023

judgment and posted the matter on 08.02.2017. On 08.02.2017, the appeal

was suo-motu reopened by the Court for clarification and again posted to

15.02.2017 for arguments.

5.Pending appeal, the first appellant namely, the mother had passed away

and for amending the cause title, the appeal was again adjourned to 11.04.2017.

In the meantime, on 22.08.2017, the appeal was dismissed for default due to the

non-appearance of the appellants. The appellants had filed I.A.No.1 of 2019

seeking to condone the delay of 300 days in filing an application to restore the

appeal, which was dismissed for default. This application was dismissed by the

first appellate Court on the ground that no proper reason had been assigned.

Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

6.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners,

the appellants have already argued the appeal and later, it was suo-motu

reopened by the concerned Court. Therefore, there was no lethargic attitude on

the part of the appellants in prosecuting the appeal. On 22.08.2017, due to the

non-appearance of the Counsel, the appeal has been dismissed for default. In

such circumstances, an opportunity may be granted to argue the appeal on

merits.

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

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1383 of 2023

7.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had

contended that the appellants had not assigned any reason, whatsoever, for the

delay between 22.08.2017 and 02.12.2018. Hence, the order of the appellate

Court may be sustained.

8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

9.The facts captured above will clearly indicate that the appeal has been

filed in the year 2011 and the arguments have been heard by the Court in

November 2016 itself. However, judgment was not delivered. The appeal was

reopened on 08.02.2017 suo-motu by the Court. In the said circumstances, this

Court is of the considered opinion that one more opportunity to be granted to

the revision petitioners to make their submissions in the appeal. However, since

the delay has not properly explained, this Court is inclined to allow the

application on terms.

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

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1383 of 2023

10.With the above said deliberations, this Court in inclined to pass the

following orders:-

a)the order impugned in the revision petition is hereby set aside and the

revision petition stands allowed with a condition to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to

the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the revision petition on or

before 28.02.2025;