Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2567 (MAD)

Subramani Gounder v. Meenatchi

2013-07-19

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the proposed parties before the Court below. Their application seeking to condone the delay of 219 days in bringing them as proposed plaintiffs in the place of the decreased sole plaintiff was dismissed. Originally the suit in O.S.No.149 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam was filed by one Elangovan against the respondent herein being the sole defendant. The said suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs with interest based on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and in his place, his parents, namely, the petitioners herein wanted to come on record. However as there was a delay of 219 days an application came to be filed seeking to condone the delay of 219 days in I.A.No.268 of 2012. The Court below dismissed the said application by stating that the petitioners have not given sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 219 days. 2. I have perused the order passed by the Court below and also perused the other pleadings of the respective parties. 3. The first petitioner is the father and the second petitioner is the mother of the deceased plaintiff. It is stated by them that after the death of their son on 20.02.2011 they have undergone severe mental stress and also became ill and consequently they were not in a position to approach the Court to file the application to bring them on record as LRs. Such contention of the petitioners cannot be brushed aside as false, especially under the circumstances that they have lost their son. It is but nature that the parents having lost their son would have certainly undergone tremendous mental agony and that would have caused some amount of illness also. The Court below considering the above facts and circumstances, ought to have allowed the application. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to come on record. Needless to say that the merits of the rival parties have to be considered and decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. However the petitioners' application seeking to come on record cannot be rejected at the threshold. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to come on record. Needless to say that the merits of the rival parties have to be considered and decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. However the petitioners' application seeking to come on record cannot be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, I find that the order passed by the Court below needs interference in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly the same is set aside. Consequently I.A.No.268 of 2012 is allowed. 4. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.