Thanikodi vs Parameswari on 13 June, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

Thanikodi vs Parameswari on 13 June, 2016

Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED : 13.06.2016  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM                

C.R.P(MD)No.1150 of 2016(NPD)   
and 
C.M.P.(MD).No.5686 of 2016  


Thanikodi                                                     .. Petitioner
                                                  Vs.
1.Parameswari 
2.S.Ramalakshmi  
3.Minor S.Supratha 
4.Minor S.Tamilselvi
5.Pusupathi Ammal  
6.The Branch Manager,  
  United India Insurance Company Limited,
  Madurai                                                  .. Respondents

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for records and set aside the fair and
executable order dated 21.02.2004 passed in I.A.No.209 of 2013 in
M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Court, (i/c)Theni at Periyakulam and allow the same.

!For Petitioner      : Mr.J.Barathan
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar   
                
:ORDER

This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam in I.A.No.209 of 2013 in MCOP.No.4 of 2006.

2. The petitioner is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2006. The respondent 1 to 5 herein filed the claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The petitioner was set exparte and an exparte award was passed on 04.06.2010. Subsequently, he filed an application in I.A.No.209 of 2013 to condone the delay of 175 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. Since the application is dismissed, the present revision has been filed.

3. Heard both side and perused the records.

4. It is seen from the records that the respondents 1 to 5 filed the claim petition in the year 2006, for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of other claimants, in a motorcycle accident took place on 09.07.2005. Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not choose to participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal having found that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay, dismissed the application.

5. Taking into consideration of these undisputed facts, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.

To Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court