Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3056 (MAD)

Chinnasamy v. Subramanian

2012-07-17

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Principal District Court, Salem, in I.A.No.119 of 2010 in the un-numbered A.S, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus: The suit O.S.No.117 of 2002 was filed by the respondent herein/Subramanian seeking the following reliefs: "to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance a) to direct the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and receive the balance the sale amount of Rs.30,000/-from the plaintiff and deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. b) In case the defendants fail to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within the stipulated period, order for the execution of the sale deed through process of law by this Hon'ble Court on behalf of the defendants. c) Or in the alternative, pass a decree for return of the advance amount, directing the defendant to repay the advance amount a sum of Rs.150,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the realization of the amount. d) create a charge over the suit property for the sum do decreed. e) restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit property to anybody by means of permanent injunction. f) Award the cost of the suit to the plaintiff payable by the defendant." (extracted as such) (ii) After full contest, the suit was decreed, as against which the defendants preferred the appeal with a petition to get the delay of 2505 days condoned in filing such appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said application, after hearing both sides. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this civil revision petition is focussed by the defendants on the main ground that an opportunity to argue the appeal before the appellate forum was denied to the unsuccessful defendants, for no good reason. 4. The perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.119 of 2010 for getting the delay condoned, in filing the appeal, would refer to the fact that there was allegedly some talk of compromise and that alone incapacitated the revision petitioners herein/defendants in preferring the appeal in time. 4. The perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No.119 of 2010 for getting the delay condoned, in filing the appeal, would refer to the fact that there was allegedly some talk of compromise and that alone incapacitated the revision petitioners herein/defendants in preferring the appeal in time. The revision petitioners herein/defendant also would try to project a case as though the real contact was concerning a money transaction and not one relating to agreement to sell. 5. The appellate Court, after considering the pro et contra, was of the opinion that absolutely there was no shard or shred, jot or miniscule, iota or scintilla of truth in the averments as found set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition to get the delay condoned in filing the appeal. In fact, the affidavit was nothing but a load of baloney fraught with falsity and mendacity and accordingly, the appellate Court thought fit not to condone the delay. 6. A plain reading of the typed set of papers would convey and connote that the reasons found set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition to get the delay condoned were far fetched ones and having no legs to stand. 7. The contention on the side of the revision petitioners/defendants that there was a talk of compromise with the respondent/plaintiff and that alone incapacitated in filing the appeal in time, is nothing but a nancy story dished out to get the delay condoned. It is nothing but an after thought on the part of the revision petitioners/defendants in filing such appeal with enormous delay of 2505 days, i.e. nearly about more than 7 years. If at all really the defendants, who are the revision petitioners herein, had been aggrieved by the judgement passed by the trial Court, they would have filed the appeal at least within a reasonable time and they would not have allowed 7 years to elapse. Hence, I could see no perversity or illegality on the part of the appellate Court in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.