Madras High Court
S.Karunanidhi vs Lakshmiammal on 25 September, 2018
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 25.09.2018 Coram The Honourable Ms.Justice P.T.ASHA C.R.P.(PD)No.1580 of 2006 S.Karunanidhi .. Petitioner Versus 1.Lakshmiammal 2.Dhanabakkiam 3.Chinnaraji Gounder 4.Perumal 5.Chinnapaiya Gounder 6.Buddan 7.Vanoraja 8.Vijaya 9.Natarajan 10.Palani 11.Balamaniammal 12.Kamala 13.Kaveri 14.S.Devaki 15.S.Kowsalya 16.Chennammal 17.Perumal 18.Gowri 19.Deivka 20.Kantha 21.Chinnathai 22.Madaiyan .. Respondents [Since Respondents 16 to 22 are proposed defendants, notice in CRP may be dispensed with given up] Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal in I.A.142 of 2004 in O.S.No.425 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate @ Uthangarai in dismissing the petition filed to condone the delay in bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased sixth defendant. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan ORDER
The above civil revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.02.22006 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai in I.A.No.142 of 2004 in O.S.No.425 of 1996, in and by which, the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 633 days in filing the application to bring on record the Legal Representatives of the deceased sixth defendant.
2. The learned Judge has dismissed the condone delay application on the ground that the revision petitioner has not given any reason for the delay and that an application to bring on record the Legal Representatives of a deceased party should be filed immediately on the death of the concerned person.
3. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application would indicate that the revision petitioner has stated that since he is not residing in the same village, he was unaware about the death of the 6th defendant, as a result of which, the delay had crept in and the interlocutory application has been moved immediately on their coming to know of the death of the sixth defendant.
4. In the light of such reasons being given by the revision petitioner, I am unable to understand as to how the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that no reasons were given by the revision petitioner. The Court should not take a very pedantic and technical view while dealing with such applications, since by refusing to condone the delay, the disposal of the suits gets further delayed and adds docket explosion. The order of the learned District Munsif, therefore deserves to be set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs.
25.09.2018 gms/dua To The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Uthangarai P.T.ASHA., J.
dua C.R.P.(PD) No.1580 of 2006 25.09.2018