Madras High Court
Kalarani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 2020
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.03.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.149 of 2018
Kalarani ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by the District Collector,
Namakkal District, Tiruchengode Road,
Namakkal Town, Namakkal Taluk.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchengode,
Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Padamudipalayam, Paramathy Vellur,
Namakkal District.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Pothanur, Pothanur Village,
Namakkal District. ...Respondents
Page No.1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India to set aside the order dated 13.10.2017 made in I.A.No.281 of
2017 in O.S.No.153 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Paramathy.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
For Respondents : Mr.Y.T.Aravind Gosh
Government Advocate for R1 to R5
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 13.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.281 of 2017 in O.S.No.153 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathy, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.153 of 2013 for a mandatory injunction. Since the defendants have failed to appear before the Trial Court, the suit in O.S.No.153 of 2013 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.281 of 2017, to condone the delay of 787 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. After hearing the parties concerned, the Trial Page No.2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018 Court allowed the application, on payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay is enormous and the respondents have not given satisfactory reasons to condone such delay. Hence, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Court below has rightly allowed the application by accepting the satisfactory reasons given by the respondents. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.
5.On perusal of the affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows :
”.....fle;j 19/9/2014k; njjp gpujpthjpfs; jug;g[ gjpYiuf;fhf tha;jh nghlg;gl;oUe;jJ vd;Wk; rk;ke;jg;gl;l Mtz';fs; kw;w nfhg;g[fSld; fye;J tpl;lgoahYk; mYtyh;fs; ,lkhw;wk; bra;ag;gl;ljhYk; ntiygS fhuzkhft[k; 4 kw;Wk; 5 k; gpujpthjpfs; ,t;tHf;fpy;Page No.3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018 bjhlh;e;J M$uhfp te;jpUg;ghh;fs; vdf;fUjpajhYk; tHf;fpd; epiyia fz;fhzpf;f ,ayhjjhy; ,Wjp tprhuizapd;nghJ M$uhf ,ayhky; ngha;tpl;lJ vd;Wk; mjd; gpd;dh; ,t;tHf;fpy; fle;j 24/9/2014 md;W tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[iuapy; gpujpthjpfs; M$uhfhjjhy; mth;fisj; njhd;whj jug;gpduhff; fUjp jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; jw;nghJ jhth rk;ke;jg;gl;l midj;J MtzkhdJ j';fs; iff;F fpilj;jgoahy; j';fshy; nkw;fz;l R{H;epiyapy; fle;j 24/9/2014 k; njjp gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s jPh;g;ghizia uj;Jbra;a ntz;oaJ epahakhft[k; mtrpakhft[k; cs;sJ. vd;Wk; nkw;go xUjiyg;gl;r jPh;g;ghizia uj;J bra;a 30 ehl;fSf;Fs; kD bra;a ,aytpy;iy/”
6.In view of the above reasons given by the respondents/defendants for the inordinate delay of 787 days was accepted and allowed the application by the Court below.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, reported in 1998 7 SCC 123, 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. 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 a want of acceptable Page No.4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018 explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a 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 revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court 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 untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court.”
8.The explanation for the delay set up by the defendants was found satisfactory by the trial Court and allowed the application. Further, the revision petitioner filed suit for declaration of title and issuance of patta and the exparte decree was passed by the trial Court. The respondent has explained the reasons for the delay in filing the application to set aside exparte decree. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and reasons stated in the application, this Court finds no valid ground warranting interference of the order of the Court below. Page No.5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018
9.The Trial Court allowed the application, on a condition that the defendants shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the plaintiff. However, the cost of Rs.2,500/- is inadequate for the delay, hence, this Court feels fit to enhance the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the revision petitioner. The defendants/respondents shall pay the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order passed by the trial Court is modified to the above extent.
10. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.03.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non Speaking Order ms Page No.6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018 To
1.The District Munsif Court, Paramathy.
2.The District Collector, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Namakkal District, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal Town, Namakkal Taluk.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
5.The Tahsildar, Padamudipalayam, Paramathy Vellur, Namakkal District.
6.The Village Administrative Officer, Pothanur, Pothanur Village, Namakkal District.
Page No.7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., ms C.R.P.(NPD).No.44 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.149 of 2018 13.03.2020 Page No.8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in