Madras High Court
Kuppan vs Muniammal on 23 September, 2019
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3133 of 2019
1.Kuppan
2.Govindammal
3.Raja
4.Ammu
5.Ambica ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Muniammal
2.Elumalai
3.Murugan ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
praying to set aside the order dated 8th July 2019 made in I.A.No.234
of 2017 in O.S.No.358 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court
at Katpadi, Vellore District.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.U.Ilango
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the order made in I.A.No.234 of 2017 in O.S.No.358 of 2010 dated 08.09.2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi, Vellore District. 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019
2.The petitioners had filed suit O.S.No.358 of 2010 before the trial Court i.e., District Munsif Court, Katpadi, Vellore for declaration and injunction and the said suit was dismissed for default on 09.07.2013. Thereafter, long years, it seems that, the plaintiffs/ petitioners had not come forward to file any petition to set aside the said order and to restore the suit. However, almost after four years, i.e., after 1413 days, the application in I.A.No.234 of 2017 was filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of the said 1413 days in filing the petition to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 09.07.2013.
3.The said application, after having been heard, considered and was dismissed by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 08.07.2019, as against which, the present revision has been filed.
4.Heard Mr.A.U.Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioners, who would submit that, though there are five plaintiffs in the suit, when the suit was dismissed, since it was conducted only by the 1st plaintiff - Kuppan, he became sick as he was affected by jaundice for nearly about four years and when after four years, he met erstwhile counsel, 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019 who was engaged by them, it was said that the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, after returning back from illness only he came to know about the development and thereafter, after changing the counsel, they made arrangement to file the present application and therefore, there had been a delay of more than 1400 days and in order to condone the same, the present application was filed, therefore, the same should have been allowed on medical reasons. However, erroneously the said application was dismissed by the trial Court, hence, it is liable to be interfered with by this Court.
5.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the materials placed before this Court.
6.The trial Court decided the I.A. not only on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioners as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, but also on the basis of the deposition of P.W.1, who has been examined in I.A.No.234 of 2017, where certain interesting factors have come out from his mouth, which have been recorded by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the said deposition of P.W.1 is 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019 extracted hereunder:
"... ehd;. vdf;F cly;epiy rhpapy;iy vd;gjw;F ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Mtzk; VnjDk; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/ ehd; tHf;if VGkiy kPJ jhd; bjhLj;Js;nsd;/ //// uh$h vd;gth; fhh;dhk;gl;oy; jhd; trpj;J tUfpwhh;/ mk;K kw;Wk; mk;gpfh jpUkzk; Mfp tpUjk;gl;oy; Fonawptpl;ldh;/ uh$h. mk;K kw;Wk; mk;gpfh MfpnahUf;F ,e;j kDit jhf;fy; bra;j tptuk; bjhpahJ/ //// uh$h. mk;K kw;Wk; mk;gpfh Mfpnahiu ghh;j;jJ 5 tUl fhyk; ,Uf;Fkh vd;why; mth;fis ehd; ghh;g;gnj fpilahJ m';F ehd; nghtnj fpilahJ/"
7.Apart from these depositions in the affidavit also filed in support of the application, no reason has been given for the huge delay, except to state that, the 1st petitioner suffered with jaundice for four years. Even though the said petition was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs, there was no supporting affidavit filed by any of the other petitioners, except the 1st petitioner and therefore, the medical reason attributable on the part of the 1st petitioner cannot be extended to the other petitioners.
8.Insofar as the medical reason, in respect of the 1st petitioner also, he admitted before the Court below that, he did not file any medical document to substantiate his case that, he was suffered with jaundice for four years.
4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019
9.As has been rightly pointed out by the other side counsel, at the time of examination of P.W.1 before the Court below that, when a person had been continuously suffered with jaundice, it is very difficult for him to survive.
10.Moreover, it is an admitted case on the part of the P.W.1 that is the 1st petitioner before the trial Court that, the other petitioners even did not know about the filing of the petition by the 1st petitioner and he has admitted that, he cannot file a petition without the signature on their behalf and he has also candidly admitted that, the signature, even in the vakalat filed in support of the application, in respect of other petitioners also, had been made only by this petitioner, as the other petitioners did not have any knowledge about the filing of this application, as the 1st petitioner claimed to have not even met to the other petitioners.
11.These shocking revealment made by the 1st petitioner before the Court below, in the deposition, makes it abundantly clear that, the 1st petitioner, with gross misuse of process of the Court, has filed the said petition, as if, that it is, the signature on behalf of all, by forging 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019 the signature of other petitioners, for that itself, the 1st petitioner can be hauled for contempt and other punitive action.
12.Be that as it may, since no reason whatsoever has been given to condone the huge delay of 1413 days and also the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application as well as the deposition of P.W.1 made it very clear that, absolutely the 1st petitioner and other petitioners do not have any plausible reason to pursue this application and this aspect since has been rightly considered by the learned Judge of the trial Court, who proceeded to reject the same in the impugned order.
13.After having gone through all these materials, this Court is of the considered view that, absolutely there is no reason to interfere in the said impugned order. Accordingly, this revision petition fails hence, the same is dismissed. No costs.
23.09.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Sgl 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019 To The District Munsif Court, Katpadi, Vellore District.
7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(PD).No.3133 of 2019 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl C.R.P.(NPD)No.3133 of 2019 23.09.2019 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in