Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2158 (MAD)

Mohanarangan v. Irshad Ali

2016-07-11

M.DURAISWAMY

body2016
ORDER : 1. Challenging the fair and final orders passed in I.A.No.354 of 2009 in O.S.No.180 of 2007 and I.A.No.355 of 2009 in O.S.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tamabaram, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. Since the issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are common, by consent of both the parties, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The plaintiff filed the suits in O.S. Nos. 180 and 181 of 2007 for permanent injunction, 4. The defendant failed to appear before the Trial Court. Hence, he was set ex-parte, pursuant to the paper publication ordered by the Trial Court and an ex-parte decree was passed on 13.09.2007. 5. Thereafter, the defendant filed applications in I.A.No.354 of 2009 in O.S.No.180 of 2007 and I.A.No.355 of 2009 in O.S.No.181 of 2007 to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the defendant has stated that he came to know about the ex-parte decrees only when the plaintiff along with some henchmen tried to remove the fencing and trespassing into his property on 3.4.2007 and on verification, he came to know that ex-parte decrees were passed against him. Thereafter, the defendant filed applications to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. 7. The averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the applications were disputed by the plaintiff. 8. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both the parties, condoned the delay, finding that the defendant was set ex-parte and that no opportunity was given to him to participate in the trial. Further, the Trial Court, while condoning the delay held that to provide an opportunity to the defendant to participate in the trial proceedings and in the interest of justice, the applications to condone the delay of 413 days are allowed. 9. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it could be seen that though according to the defendant he came to know about the ex-parte decree sometime in the year 2007 itself, he choose to remain silent till March 2009 for filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. 10. 9. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it could be seen that though according to the defendant he came to know about the ex-parte decree sometime in the year 2007 itself, he choose to remain silent till March 2009 for filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. 10. Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of sufficient cause shown by the party, the Trial Court should not have condoned the delay. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Another wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the law of limitation (ii) P.K. Ramachandan v. State of Kerala, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that discretion excised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. In thee circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 11. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent submitted that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a judgment reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 [N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first cut refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior cut would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.” 12. In the case on hand, except saying that the defendant came to know about the ex-parte decrees passed on 13.09.2007 in the year 2007, he has not given any acceptable reason for condoning the delay of 413 days in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. When the defendant had knowledge about the ex-parte decrees even in the year 2007 itself, he could have filed the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees immediately. But, for no reason, the defendant waited till March 2009 for filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. When the defendant failed to explain the reasons for the delay in a proper manner, the delay cannot be condoned. 13. It is settled position that unless a party seeking for condonation of delay shows sufficient cause for the delay, the delay should not be condoned. 14. The Trial Court without considering the merits of the matter mechanically condoned the delay stating that the defendant was set ex-parte pursuant to the paper publication effected by the plaintiff. That is not the sole ground to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. 14. The Trial Court without considering the merits of the matter mechanically condoned the delay stating that the defendant was set ex-parte pursuant to the paper publication effected by the plaintiff. That is not the sole ground to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees. When the defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the matters in a proper manner, the Trial Court should not have condoned the delay. 15. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the fair and decreetal orders passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are set aside. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.