Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pappammal on 19 September, 2017
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2017 Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order 18.09.2017 19.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1215 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2008 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Through its District Collector Tirunelveli District 2.The Tahsildar Taluk Office Radhapuram Tirunelveli District ... Petitioners -vs- Pappammal ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.46 of 2006 in Unnumbered A.S.No...........of 2006, dated 26.06.2006, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. !For Petitioners : Mr.V.Muruganandam Addl. Govt. Pleader ^For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar :ORDER
In this civil revision petition, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.06.2006, passed in I.A.No.46 of 2006 in Unnumbered A.S.No...........of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, are under challenge.
2. It is found that the respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit against the petitioners / defendants in O.S.No.558 of 1996 for declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit had ended in favour of the respondent / plaintiff on 05.07.2004. It is found that challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit, the petitioners / defendants had preferred an appeal. However, inasmuch as the appeal had not been preferred in time as stipulated under law and there is a delay of 530 days in filing the appeal, the petitioners / defendants have preferred I.A.No.46 of 2006. The reason given by the petitioners / defendants for the condonation of the delay is that though the Trial Court pronounced the Judgment on 05.07.2004, the Pleader doing Government work at Valliyoor had applied for the copies of the Judgment and Decree only on 15.12.2005 and the copies were made ready on 29.12.2005 and only thereafter, the Department had become aware of the delay in the obtainment of the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree and hence, the delay had occurred and the same should be condoned.
3. The above reason given by the petitioners / defendants for the condonation of the delay is stoutly resisted by the respondent / plaintiff. It is the case of the respondent / plaintiff that the petitioners / defendants in order to give reasons for the condonation of the delay had thrown the blame on the Government Pleader at Valliyoor. It is not the case of the petitioners / defendants that they are unaware of the decree passed in the suit and therefore, their plea that the Government Pleader had filed the copy application belatedly and hence, the delay occurred in filing the appeal should not be accepted. Further, it is stated that the petitioners / defendants were made aware of the decree passed in the suit by the respondent / plaintiff by way of sending a due notice and the same having been served on the second petitioner concerned, the petitioners cannot plead ignorance of the decree passed in the suit and therefore, the petitioners / defendants should have endeavoured to obtain the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree immediately and preferred the appeal in time. Further, it is stated that only with a view to delay the execution proceedings levied by the respondent / plaintiff, the petitioners / defendants preferred the appeal and hence, the application is not entitled for acceptance and liable to be dismissed.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties and the materials placed, finding that there is no justification on the part of the petitioners / defendants for the delay in preferring the appeal and further finding that the petitioners / defendants being fully aware of the decree passed in the suit, should have endeavoured to obtain the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree in time and preferred the appeal and further finding that the petitioners / defendants, after taking part in the execution proceedings only had taken steps to obtain the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree and levied the appeal and in such view of the matter, holding that the petitioners / defendants have not given acceptable and sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay, dismissed the application. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
5. It is not the case of the petitioners / defendants that they are unaware of the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit. It is, thus, found that the petitioners / defendants being aware of the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit on 05.07.2004 itself, should have endeavoured to apply for the certified copies of the same immediately incase, they feel that the said Judgment and Decree are fit to be challenged. However, it is found that the petitioners / defendants have not endeavoured to prefer the appeal as against the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit and accordingly, not evinced interest in applying for the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree immediately after the pronouncement of the same. It is found that very belatedly, even as per their case, they have applied for the Judgment and Decree only on 15.12.2005. It is found further on the basis of the materials that even prior to the same, the petitioners / defendants are aware of the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit by way of the notice sent to them and this could be seen from a cumulative reading of the documents marked as Exs.R1 to R3 in the proceedings of the Court below. Therefore, it is seen that the petitioners / defendants having noted the laying of the execution proceedings against them by the respondent / plaintiff, thereafter only had taken steps to obtain the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree and subsequently, preferred the appeal, hence, it is found that a huge delay had occurred. In such view of the matter, the case of the petitioners / defendants that only on account of the delay of the Government Pleader at Valliyoor in applying for the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree, the delay had occurred in preferring the appeal as such cannot be readily accepted. As seen above, if the petitioners / defendants had really intended to prefer the appeal against the Judgment and Decree and they, knowing very well about the passing of the Judgment and Decree on 05.07.2004 itself, should have applied for the copies of the same immediately thereafter and presented the appeal in time. On the other hand, only after the respondent / plaintiff had instituted the execution proceedings and taking notice of the same, it is found that the petitioners / defendants very coolly applied for the certified copies of the Judgement and Decree on 15.12.2005 and come forward with the appeal belatedly. In such view of the matter, the Court below, has rightly, found that no sufficient cause at all has been given by the petitioners / defendants for the condonation of the delay and accordingly, rightly dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners / defendant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2013-1- L.W.58 [Paramanandan vs. Selvanagaki and others], 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 278 [Pandiarajan and others vs. R.Rajammal and another], 2016 (2) MWN (Civil) 233 [N.Pappayee Ammal and others vs. P.Ramasamy], 2016 (2) MWN (Civil) 578 [M.Somasundaram and others vs. Vetrivel], 2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 404 [A.Abitha Nachi vs. K.S.Saroja and others] and 2016 (1) MWN (Civil) 721 [Hemamalini vs. T.Sakunthala]. The principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any error or mistake in the impugned order of the Court below. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. .