Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 300 (MAD)

Savithiri Ammal v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal

2014-02-07

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition has been filed under Order IV, Rule 9(4) of the Appellate Side Rules. 2. The judgment debtors in O.S.No.618 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram, failed in their attempt to resist the prayer made in the plaint by the respondent herein for a declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and also failed in their attempt to challenge the decree of the trial Court before the Appellate Court as the appeal filed by them came to be dismissed confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. 3. After having failed on the trial side and before the Appellate Court, the petitioners herein resisted the Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder viz., the respondent herein for recovery of possession in accordance with the decree. The Execution Petition came to be filed in April 1985 itself. The petitioners herein were able to protract the matter for more than two decades before they filed a petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in E.A.No.76 of 2006 in E.P.No.292 of 1985 in O.S.No.618 of 1971. The claim made therein by the petitioners herein is that the settlement deed, based on which the decree holder viz., the respondent herein filed the suit, had been subsequently cancelled by the Settlor. The contention could have been raised only on the trial side or at least in the appeal, the said contention cannot be raised in an application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. in the execution stage. Somehow or other, the petitioners were able to file the above said Execution Application in 2006 and prolong the enquiry in the Execution Application for another six years and at last, the application came to be dismissed on 13.02.2012. Till such time, which account for nearly three decades, the petitioners were able to put on hold the execution of the decree. Thereafter, they chose to file a revision in C.R.P.SR.No.65168 in July 2012 pointing out certain defects. 4. The Registry of this Court returned the revision papers. The petitioners, who got back the revision papers for rectification and representation, simply kept them in cold storage for 468 days over and above the time granted for them to re-present the papers. Thereafter, they chose to file a revision in C.R.P.SR.No.65168 in July 2012 pointing out certain defects. 4. The Registry of this Court returned the revision papers. The petitioners, who got back the revision papers for rectification and representation, simply kept them in cold storage for 468 days over and above the time granted for them to re-present the papers. After such an inordinate delay, the petitioners have chosen to re-present the revision papers along with the present petition for condoning the above said delay of 468 days in re-presenting the C.R.P.SR.No.65168 of 2012. 5. Normally, this Court takes a lenient view in the petitions seeking condonation of delay in re-presenting the returned papers. But this cannot be pooled with the general category of cases in which such leniency is shown by this Court. The background of this case is very much material in deciding whether the delay has been caused deliberately or inadvertently. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order will throw some light on the steps taken by the petitioners to put on hold the execution of the decree for nearly three decades. Even thereafter, the petitioners were able to resist the execution by showing the filing of the Civil Revision Petition, producing the C.R.P.SR.No.65168 of 2012 to the Executing Court and now, perhaps having been pressurised to produce an orders staying the execution, the petitioners have chosen to re-present the revision papers with the present petition for condoning the delay in re-presentation. The delay, according to the considered view of this Court, is deliberate and willful and the object sought to be achieved by causing the delay is protraction of the case and postponement of the execution of the decree as long as possible. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case in which the petition to condone the delay in re-presentation has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. The revision petition in C.R.P.SR.No.65168 of 2012 shall stand rejected consequent to the order of dismissal of the condone delay petition.