Madras High Court
C.Muniraj vs S.Ravi on 18 June, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
CMP.No.212 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
CMP No. 212 of 2024
AND
AS SR NO. 164730 OF 2023
1. C.Muniraj
S/o. Chinnasamy,
Chikkamarandahalli, Gujjarahalli
Post, Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri Dist.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S.Ravi
S/o. Singaram, D.No. 54-Y,
Athimutlu Village, Samanoor Post,
Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri Dist.
Respondent(s)
AS SR No. 164730 of 2023
1. C.Muniraj
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S.Ravi
Respondent(s)
1/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:26 pm )
CMP.No.212 of 2024
CMP No. 212 of 2024
PRAYER
To condone the delay of 512 days and pass such further orders which this
Honble Court.
CMP No. 212 of 2024
For Appellant(s): S.Subramanian
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.S.Baskaran
ORDER
Application filed to condone the delay of 512 days in preferring the
appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Dharmapuri in O.S.No.77 of 2017 dated 27.04.2022.
2. On receipt of the notice in the said application for condoning delay,
the decree holder/respondent has filed a detailed counter stating that nothing
survives in the appeal, since the appellant had conceded to the decree and
executed sale deed dated 29.05.2023 in favour of one Lokeshwaran and got
it registered at Sub Registrar Office, Marandahalli, Dharmapuri District, for
which, the decree holder is one of the witnesses. Thus, the decree holder
has given up his right over the suit property and permitted the appellant to
alienate the property in favour of Lokeshwaran. After executing the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:26 pm )
with the consent of the decree holder on 29.05.2023, the present appeal is
filed on 20.12.2023 with the delay of 512 days is not maintainable.
3. After receipt of the counter, the counsel for the petitioner/appellant
remained absent, not turned up, though the matter is listed twice.
4. This Court on perusing the records finds that the reasons stated for
delay is contrary to the conduct of the petitioner/appellant and further more
having executed the subject suit property after suffering the decree of
specific performance, the appellant had alienated the property, of course
with the consent and knowledge of the decree holder.
5. Having alienated the property with the consent of the decree
holder, nothing survives for the Appellate Court to consider from the
counter. This Court understands that pursuant to the decree of the specific
performance, the respondent has preferred execution petition in EP.No.6 of
2023, but, due to the subsequent events, he has instructed the counsel to
withdraw the execution petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:26 pm )
6. It is also seen from the counter that the appellant after executing
the sale deed in favour of Lokeshwaran with the consent of the decree
holder against Lokeshwaran challenging his sale in favour of
sLokeshwaran. In any case, the decree holder in O.S.No.77 of 2017 in
express turn had made clear that he is not interested in pursuing the decree
and he is party to the sale deed executed by the appellant /Judgement Debtor
who and in favour of Lokeshwaran vide document dated 29.05.2023. Thus,
it is clear that by suppressing vital facts, the appeal been filed with the
delay of 512 days not assigning genuine and possible reasons and hence,
this petition stands dismissed. Consequently, A.SR.No.164730 of 2023 is
dismissed.
18-06-2025
Vv
To
1.S.Ravi
S/o. Singaram, D.No. 54-Y,
Athimutlu Village, Samanoor Post,
Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri Dist.
2. The Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:26 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
Vv
in
AS.SR.No.164730 of
18.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:26 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:26 pm )
