Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3574 (MAD)

K. A. George v. M. Manickam

2014-09-23

S.VIMALA

body2014
Order 1. These two revision petitions are filed by the subsequent purchaser viz., the Second Defendant in the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No. 940 of 2012, praying to condone the delay of 317 days in preferring the appeal before the Sub Court, Coimbatore. 2.1. The Court below by an order dated 26.11.2013 allowed the petition subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall a cost of Rs.1500/-to each of the defendants on or before 10.12.2013. The plaintiffhas deposited the cost into the State Bank of India and after the filing of the receipt before the Court, the Court has ordered numbering of the appeal. 3. The Civil Revision Petition in CRP (NPD)No.970 of 2014 has been filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2013, passed in I.A.No.940 of 2012 in A.S.C.F.R.No.30480 of 2012, allowing the petition for condonation of delay . CRP.SR.No.44886 of 2014 was filed challenging the procedure adopted in numbering the appeal, while condoning the delay. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that this is a case of Acid poisoning and the wife of the appellant/first respondent has been discharged from the hospital, long prior to the filing of the petition to condone the delay and therefore there are no grounds to condone the delay. 5. A perusal of the discharge summary would go to show that the appellants wife has been admitted on 02.07.2011 and discharged on 08.07.2011, still considering the nature of ailment i.e. acid poisoning, which would involve serious health issues to be attended to, the contention of the plaintiff that he was made to attend his wife must be true and correct. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff has chosen to appear in the police enquiry and not to the office of the counsel and therefore it is the case of willful delay on the part of the plaintiff. 7. History would speak to the fact that if anybody fails to attend the office of the police commissioner, drastic consequences would have to be faced and therefore fearing the same, he might have attended the police enquiry and not the advocate office. Therefore, just because the plaintiff attended the police enquiry and not the advocate office cannot be the ground to reject the claim made. The order of the Court allowing the application with a cost of Rs.1500/-cannot be faulted with. 8. Therefore, just because the plaintiff attended the police enquiry and not the advocate office cannot be the ground to reject the claim made. The order of the Court allowing the application with a cost of Rs.1500/-cannot be faulted with. 8. But, considering the duration of delay and the stage at which the delay has occurred, the cost should have been not less than Rs.5,000/-and therefore the petition for condonation of delay is allowed on payment of Rs.5,000/- payable by the first respondent/plaintiff to the counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure adopted by the court is not correct, as the cost of Rs.1500/-has not been received by him, but has been deposited into the bank. It is not stated as to why the second respondent did not receive the cost. It is merely stated that R2 did not receive the cost and the amount deposited into the Bank. The main contention is that there is no order permitting the plaintiff to deposit the cost into bank. Had it been brought to the notice of the Court that the Second respondent is not inclined to receive the cost as he was intending to prefer revision probably the Court would have waited for some more time. However, the order passed condoning the delay on payment of cost has been confirmed, however, ordering payment of higher amount as costs. Hence, the petition to condone the delay has been allowed on payment of higher amount of cost, the numbering of the appeal is ratified. 10. Both the revisions are disposed of. The cost shall be paid within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the condition that the a sum of Rs.5,000/-shall be paid directly to the counsel for the revision petitioner.