Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2626 (MAD)

Sakthivel v. Lakshmi Ammal

2012-06-22

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 11.12.2009 passed in E.A.No.43 of 2009 in O.S.No.356 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Sankarapuram, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Despite printing the name of the respondents, no one appeared. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus: The specific performance decree was passed in favour of the revision petitioner on 17.06.2005 mandating that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- should be paid on or before 17.07.2005. However, the copy application was filed only on 24.08.2005 and the copy of the judgment and decree was obtained on 13.03.2007 and immediately thereafter, on 04.04.2007 E.A.No.43 of 2009 was filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to extend the period for depositing the said remaining sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- in Court, setting out the reasons to the effect that the amount could not be deposited because he could not also see the order of the Court. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge concerned dismissed the application holding that there was enormous delay and the petitioner should have taken speedy steps to obtain the certified copy and that too, the application for getting the time extended for deposit was not filed within 17.07.2005, which was stipulated as the last date for the deposit of the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that owing to communication gap between the petitioner and his the then Advocate, all these problems crept in and he would submit that there is virtually no enormous delay, but there was delay in applying the copy application and no sooner the copy of the decree was made ready, the application concerned was filed on 04.04.2007 for depositing the remaining sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. 6. The point of consideration is as to whether the delay could be condoned in permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount? 7. A thorough perusal of the records would reveal that actually the delay could be computed as the one between 17.07.2005, the last date for deposit of the amount as stipulated in the decree and 24.08.2005, the date on which the copy application was filed. 7. A thorough perusal of the records would reveal that actually the delay could be computed as the one between 17.07.2005, the last date for deposit of the amount as stipulated in the decree and 24.08.2005, the date on which the copy application was filed. Even the time taken to file E.A.No.43 of 2009 on 04.04.2007 from 13.03.2007, may not be taken as so serious, as after obtaining the decree, the application was filed within a month. The lower Court was under the impression that the application for extension should have been filed on or before 17.07.2005 itself which is not correct. Even after the expiry of time in the decree for deposit could be got extended as per law. In this case, the lower Court found fault with the party for having not taken speedy steps to obtain the certified copy. The records would show that even though copy application itself was filed on 24.08.2005, the copy was made ready only on 13.03.2007, for which the revision petitioner/party cannot be blamed. There is also one other fact which falls for consideration. The total sale consideration was Rs.85,000/- out of that Rs.75,000/-was paid already as advance. As such, there remained only Rs.10,000/-. I do not think that the revision petitioner might have deliberately caused delay without availing beneficial decree in his favour by paying a pittance amount of Rs.10,000/-. As such, I do not think that there was wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner in not depositing the said amount in the Court. 8. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the view that the delay could be condoned and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.