Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2747 (MAD)

B. G. Vijayakumar v. D. Mariappan

2016-08-05

M.DURAISWAMY

body2016
ORDER : There is a delay of 535 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (NPD). SR. No. 57762 of 2015. 2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner, who is a 3rd party to the proceedings, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.4296 of 2012 in O.S.No.8494 of 1998 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.8494 of 1998 for specific performance. 4. The trial Court passed an exparte decree on 20.10.2000. After 12 years from the date of passing of the decree, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.4296 of 2012 to implead himself in the suit. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and the trial Court dismissed the application, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 3rd party petitioner. 5. Now, there is a delay of 535 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in paragraph-19, the petitioner has stated that in view of the pressure mounted by the plaintiff, who had filed a suit in O.S.No.11833 of 2010, he was left stranded and that due to the sudden disappearance of the original plaint documents in O.S.No.2558 of 1991, he was put to mental agony and anguish. Hence, there is a delay of 535 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. The reasoning given by the petitioner for condoning the inordinate delay of 535 days was disputed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in his counter. 6. Apart from making the averments stated above, the petitioner has not given any other acceptable reason for condoning the delay of 535 days. The reasoning given by the petitioner for condoning the inordinate delay of 535 days is bereft of details and bald. 7. It is settled position that unless a party seeking for condonation of the delay gives sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the delay should not be condoned. 8. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680 [H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited Vs. Nahar Exports Limited and another] squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Since the petitioner has not given sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 535 days, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Nahar Exports Limited and another] squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Since the petitioner has not given sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 535 days, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015 is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (NPD).SR.No.57762 of 2015 is rejected. No costs.