Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1527 (MAD)

V. Revathi & Others v. R. Santhi & Others

2010-04-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD) No.464 of 2010, has been filed against the fair and final order, dated 1.9.2009, made in I.A.No.413 of 2009, in O.S.No.62 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the trial Court had dismissed the application filed, under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on the ground that the time granted for the payment of cost had expired and therefore, the application stands dismissed, automatically. The trial Court had failed to exercise its inherent power to pass orders, under Section 148, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for extension of time, stating that it had become functus officio. The learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, had relied on the decision in K.RANGASAMY GOUNDER Vs. MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER ( 2005 (3) MLJ 331 ). However, the fact that the said decision had been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court, in GOWRI AMMAL Vs. MURUGAN ( 2006 (3) CTC 418 ) had not been brought to her knowledge. In the said decision, it had been held that a conjoint reading of Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would make it clear that the trial Court had the power to extend the time beyond the stipulated period, when sufficient cause exists or when certain events are pointed out to the Court, as reasons for the non-compliance of the earlier order, if they are beyond the control of the party concerned, as the object of the Civil Procedure Code, is to promote justice. 3. In such circumstances, the order of the District Munsif, Mannargudi, dated 1.9.2009, made in I.A.No.413 of 2009, in O.S.No.62 of 2007, is set aside and the District Munsif, Mannargudi, is directed to reconsider I.A.No.413 of 2009, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in GOWRI AMMAL Vs. MURUGAN ( 2006 (3) CTC 418 ) and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. 4. In view of this order, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.464 of 2010, C.R.P.(PD) Nos.563 and 564 of 2010, stand closed. MURUGAN ( 2006 (3) CTC 418 ) and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. 4. In view of this order, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.464 of 2010, C.R.P.(PD) Nos.563 and 564 of 2010, stand closed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioners in the said civil revision petitions to challenge the order, that may be passed by the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the same and if they deem it fit to do so, in the manner known to law. 5. These civil revision petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.