Madras High Court
Azhagu Sambasivam vs Azhagu Bangaru on 3 February, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020 in
Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020
in
Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016
Azhagu Sambasivam ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Azhagu Bangaru
2.Hamdev Ramakrishna
3.Lakshmi
4.Lalitha
5.Sasikala
6.Revathy ...Respondents
PRAYER: C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020 is filed under Order 4 Rule 9(4) of
C.P.C, to condone the delay of 920 days in representing this review
application in Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh
for Mr.G.Sankaran
http://www.judis.nic.in1/4
C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020 in
Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 920 days in representing this review application in Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016.
2.The petitioner preferred an Appeal Suit in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31 of 2005 along with delay of 1164 days in representing the Appeal papers in A.S.SR.No.91828 of 2011. The long delay in representation of the Appeal Suit filed in S.R.No.91828 of 2011 was considered by this Court and an order was passed on 03.08.2015 as follows;
“2.Upon hearing the submissions made by Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the contents of the supporting affidavit, this Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned for the inordinate delay. It seems, the petitioner has chosen to purchase time for blocking the passing of the final decree by simply presenting the appeal with defects, getting back the appeal papers returned and keeping them in cold storage for more than three years. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the petition.
3.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal memorandum in http://www.judis.nic.in2/4 C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020 in Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016 A.S.SR.No.91828 of 2011 shall stand rejected.”
3.Challenging the order passed by this Court on 03.08.2015, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.8186 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 03.05.2016. After the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, once again, the petitioner filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 920 days in filing the Review Application in S.R.No.95029 of 2016 against M.P.No.1 of 2015 in A.S.SR.No.91828 of 2011. It is pertinent to note that the Appeal Suit was filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31 of 2005 and the delay in representing was dismissed by this Court and the said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, then the Review Petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained at all. However, the Review Petition also filed and now there is a delay of 920 days in representing the Review Petition.
4.This being the continuous default and delay being committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason whatsoever to entertain the Miscellaneous Petition to condone the huge delay of 920 days in representing the Review. http://www.judis.nic.in3/4 C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020 in Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM.,J mrm Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020 stands dismissed and accordingly, the Review Application stands rejected at the stage of SR itself. No costs.
03.02.2020 mrm Index:Yes Speaking order To
1. Additional District Court, Cuddallore.
2. Sub Assistant Registrar, A.E.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.P.No.1710 of 2020
in Rev.Appl.SR.No.95029 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in4/4