Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3073 (MAD)

Mangaiyarkarasi v. N. Palani

2013-08-29

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment : 1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved over the order passed by the court below in dismissing her application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 304 days in filing an appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 2010 dated 31.01.2011. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. 3. The petitioner herein as the second defendant suffered a decree for specific performance in O.S.No.68 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi dated 31.01.2011. The decree holder in pursuant to the said decree, filed an execution petition in E.P.No.25 of 2011. The petitioner herein entered appearance in the E.P. and filed her counter on 02.12.2011. It appears that the matter was adjourned on several occasions at the instance of the parties and finally, an order was passed in the execution petition. Consequently, the sale deed was executed through court and registered before the Sub Registrar, Vaniyambadi on 11.07.2012. Thereafter, the present application is filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act on 13.08.2012. 4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said application would show as if the petitioner came to know about the decree only a week before filing the said application, when she met her counsel. It is further stated that she was suffering with viral fever and hypertension for the past more than three months. Thus, even according to the petitioner, she was unwell only during the period of three months, prior to the filing of the above application. 5. Admittedly, the decree came to be passed on 31.01.2011 and the application came to be filed on 13.08.2012. Therefore, no reason was given by the petitioner as to why she was prevented from filing an appeal immediately from the date on which the decree came to be passed. Moreover, the petitioner has totally suppressed the execution proceedings in the affidavit. The court below has found that the petitioner having entered appearance in the execution petition as early as on 05.07.2011 and filed a counter on 02.12.2011, has made false allegations and misleaded the court by stating that as if she came to know about the decree, only a week before filing the said application. The court below has found that the petitioner having entered appearance in the execution petition as early as on 05.07.2011 and filed a counter on 02.12.2011, has made false allegations and misleaded the court by stating that as if she came to know about the decree, only a week before filing the said application. Therefore, the Court below has found that the petitioner has suppressed the truth and filed the affidavit with false allegations and misleaded the Court by burking the factum of execution proceedings and execution of sale deed. Thus, the petitioner who has come to the Court with false avements is not entitled to the relief. The court below has rightly rejected the application and the same does not warrant interference, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not given sufficient reason for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.