Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4252 (MAD)

C. Sekar Dev v. Lalitha

2011-10-13

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order and Decretal Order dated 08.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.51 of 2009 in I.A.No.133 of 2008 in Unnumbered C.M.A.SR.No.6055 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur. 2. The petitioner/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act which came to be dismissed on 29.2.2008 on contest. Pending the HMOP, the respondent/wife filed I.A.No.4 of 2007 for maintenance which was also ordered on 29.2.2008. Challenging the order dismissing the HMOP, the petitioner/husband filed an appeal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal SR No.6055 of 2008 before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. Along with the appeal, an Application in I.A.No.133 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The I.A.No.133 of 2008 was dismissed on 16.3.2009 for default on account of non payment of batta. Thereafter, petitioner filed another application in I.A.No.51 of 2009 to restore the I.A.No.133 of 2008 in Unnumbered CMA SR No.6055 of 2008 which was dismissed for non payment of batta. This I.A.No.51 of 2009 came to be dismissed on 8.7.2009. Challenging the same, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition on 9.10.2009. 3. It appears that the Civil Revision Petition papers has been returned for rectification of some defects. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.P.No.1 of 2011 to condone the delay of 648 days in representing the Civil Revision Petition, which, however, was allowed on 22.8.2011. 4. On going through the factual matrix of the case and the reasons given by the revision petitioner for condoning the delay in presenting the appeal seems to be without any basis. It is stated that the petitioner has suffered from jaundice and has taken nattu medicine in his native place. To support his contention no record was produced. Petitioner has not stated when the copy of the order was received by the advocate, when he was informed about the dismissal and when the petitioner suffered jaundice and on what date he approached the lawyer to pursue the matter in appeal. To support his contention no record was produced. Petitioner has not stated when the copy of the order was received by the advocate, when he was informed about the dismissal and when the petitioner suffered jaundice and on what date he approached the lawyer to pursue the matter in appeal. That apart even after filing of the appeal before the District Court, Tiruvallur the petitioner has not paid the batta for service of notice on the respondent and the unnumbered Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be dismissed on 16.3.2011 for default in payment of batta. Even before this Court after filing the Civil Revision Petition in October, 2009, the petitioner has taken nearly two years to number the Civil Revision Petition. Though the Court was lenient in considering the said plea for representation, from the narration of facts, it is clear that the petitioner is not serious in pursuing the matter and the entire exercise seems to be academic and without any seriousness that is required. The Court will not come to aid, a party to show serious interest in pursuing or prosecuting the matter. Taking note of the petitioner's callous attitude in the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. 5. In the result, the order and decretal order of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvalluir, is confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage.