Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4729 (MAD)

T. Anburajan v. Mani

2011-12-07

G.RAJASURIA

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.106 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. ( 2. ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite printing the name of the learned Counsel concerned. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, would run thus: The petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.132 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, for specific performance of the agreement to sell relating to the suit immovable property and the same was decreed exparte. Thereafter, E.P. was filed and the sale deed was executed by the Court in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Subsequently, proceedings have been taken by the decree holder to get the possession of the said property. ( 3. ) AT that point of time, before taking delivery of the immovable property by the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.106 of 2009 to get condoned the delay of 2243 days i.e. about 6 years 52 days in filing the petition to get the exparte decree set aside, for which, a counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein. ( 4. ) HOWEVER, the lower Court simply allowed that application by passing a one line order without citing any reasons whatsoever as under: "Petition allowed on payment of court by Rs.1000/- 15.7.10 failing which the petition will be dismissed. Call on 16.7.10." The learned Counsel for the petitioner would convincingly and legally, appropriately and appositely highlight and spotlight the fact that the lower Court was not justified in passing such a one line order without assigning any reason for condoning such huge and enormous delay. The fact also remains that the counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner as against the said I.A, but no reference was made to it in the said order. ( 5. The fact also remains that the counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner as against the said I.A, but no reference was made to it in the said order. ( 5. ) HERE, even though there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, the counter is found filed earlier by the respondent setting out the details relating to the merits of his defence in the suit and also he would find fault with the method and manner in which the summons sought to be served in the suit, but absolutely, there is nothing to point out and indicate as to how such a one line order passed by the lower Court would be tenable. ( 6. ) THE point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in passing such a cryptic one line order without assigning reasons for condoning such huge and enormous delay? Crystal clear, as it is, no Court is given carte blanche to pass a one line order without assigning any reason whatsoever. When such is the position, it is beyond comprehension as to how the lower Court was justified in passing such a cryptic one line order and that too, in a matter where counter affidavit was filed. The delay is also very huge. ( 7. ) HENCE, the point is decided to the effect that the lower Court was not justified in passing such a cryptic order without assigning reasons and accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.106 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, is liable to be set aside. ( 8. ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.106 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court to deal with the said application and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to both sides. The matter shall be disposed of within a period of one month from 02.01.2012. The parties shall appear before the lower Court concerned on 02.01.2012. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.