Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2576 (MAD)

Susilamani & Others v. K. Ranganathan

2009-07-22

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- The revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 211. 2007 in I.A.No.687 of 2006 in O.S.No. 85 of 1997 passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 630 days in filing petition to set aside the exparte decree. .2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.687 of 2006 has among other things observed that the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants participated in the trial and in the year 2003 an exparte decree has been passed and it is for the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants to follow the case and after the exparte decree, the respondent/plaintiff waited till 2005 and then filed a final decree petition and now the petition is filed without any sufficient reason to satisfy the Court for long delay and that the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants are have not been prejudiced by the preliminary decree and hence the petition is dismissed. 3. A perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.687 of 2005 filed by the second revision petitioner/second defendant before the trial Court shows that the main case has been posted for trial on 112. 2003 and they have not appeared either in person or through their counsel on 112. 2003 and therefore, they have been set exparte and the factum of an exparte decree being passed has been informed to them through letter by counsel and as such they have not been enable to contact their counsel since the postal cover has not served on them and added further that the second petitioner met with an accident and therefore he cannot move without help of others and the third petitioner has been residing out of the revision petitioners village and therefore he has not been in a position to contact him or the first petitioner and because of the communication gap, there has been a delay of 630 days in projecting the application. 4. In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is significantly mentioned that the suit has been adjourned till 2003 and the same has been posted for trial on 12. 2003 on which date, the trial has commenced and that the revision petitioners have not appeared before the Court till 112. 4. In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is significantly mentioned that the suit has been adjourned till 2003 and the same has been posted for trial on 12. 2003 on which date, the trial has commenced and that the revision petitioners have not appeared before the Court till 112. 2003 for cross examination of the respondent/plaintiff and ultimately a preliminary decree has been passed but the petitioners coming to know of the pendency of the proceedings as deliberately abstained from appearing the Court and the reasons mentioned in the affidavit in I.A.No.687 of 2006 are not sufficient or acceptable one so as to condone the huge delay of 630 days and as a matter of fact, the revision petitioners are bound to explain each and every days delay in law and that a final decree proceedings in I.A.No. 427 of 2005 which is pending and only with a view to stultify the same, the application for condonation of delay has been filed and prayed for dismissal of the application. .5. On a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.687 of 2006, it is candidly clear that the trial Court has inter alia cryptically mentioned only that now the petition is filed without any sufficient reason to satisfy the Court for long delay and further that the revision petitioners are not prejudiced by the preliminary decree etc . The aforesaid observation of the trial Court will not suffice in the considered opinion of this Court in regard to the disposal of I.A.No.687 of 2006. As a matter of fact, the trial Court has not pinpointedly referring any of the reasons as sufficient one in passing an order in I.A.No.687 of 2006. 6. One cannot ignore an important fact that the ingredients of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will have to be given a useful and meaningful interpretation in a liberal way. To put it differently, a Court of Law should not adopt a pedantic approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. In fact the party does not stand to gain by causing a delay or by projecting an application lately. 7. Refusing to condone the delay means that a meritorious cases will be thrown out at the nascent stage and the cause of justice being defeated. In fact the party does not stand to gain by causing a delay or by projecting an application lately. 7. Refusing to condone the delay means that a meritorious cases will be thrown out at the nascent stage and the cause of justice being defeated. On the other hand, if the application for condonation of delay is allowed then the highest that can happen is a party is allowed to enter into an arena of conducting the main proceedings of the case and the cause can be decided on merits, after providing due opportunities to the parties and hearing them so. Indeed, a Court of Law is to over come the technicalities and substantial justice will have to be delivered to the parties. 8. It is not out of place to point out that when the order of the trial Court is tested before a higher forum, then such order must reflect the appearance of Justice. In short, the order of the trial Court ought to be a reasoned and prudent one subserving the ends of justice. Therefore, by taking a liberal view, this Court allows the revision petition in the interest of justice, of course, with a condition directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,300/- towards cost to the respondent directly to be paid on or before 8. 2009 failing which the revision shall stand automatically dismissed without any further reference. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.687 of 2006 in O.S.No.85 of 1997 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. The revision petitioners/defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2300/-(Rupees Two Thousand Three hundred Only) as costs(by way of penalty) to the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on or before 8. 2009 failing which it is made clear that the revision petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.