Madras High Court
Valarmathi vs The Idol Of Arulmigu Shri ... on 6 August, 2020
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1687 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.08.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.1687 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
1.Valarmathi
2.Babu : Respondents/Petitioners/Petitioners 1&2/
Defendants
.. Vs ..
1.The Idol of Arulmigu Shri Renganathasamy,
Srirangam represented by its Joint Commissioner/
Executive Officer, Devasthanam Office,
Srirangam.
2.Venkidusamy
Nallusamy (Died) : Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, praying to call for the entire records and set aside the fair
and decretal order dated 13.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.303 of 2014 in
I.A.No.991 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.Saravanan
Respondent 2 – Dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2019
----
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1687 of 2015
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No. 303 of 2014 in I.A.No.991 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:
2.1.The first respondent herein is a temple represented by its Executive Officer. The first respondent herein filed a suit for eviction against the revision petitioners 1 and 2 who were registered as tenants in respect of a premises owned by the first respondent temple. The suit was actually for ejectment as well as for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.1993 to 30.01.1996. An ex parte decree was passed and thereafter a petition was filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed for default and hence, the revision petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.303 of 2014 to condone the delay of 2492 days in filing a petition to restore the application in I.A.No.991 of 2004 which 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1687 of 2015 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was contested by the first respondent mainly on the ground that the inordinate delay of 2492 days in restoring the petition in I.A.No.991 of 2004 was not explained and that the revision petitioners have no defence in the suit.
The lower Court dismissed the petition after recording a finding that the inordinate delay in filing a petition has caused so much inconvenience and prejudice to the first respondent and that the petitioners cannot be given any indulgence as the temple is fighting for more than two decades to recover the property.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the temple has obtained decree against several tenants for eviction and that the execution petitions filed by the temple against the tenants are pending. The learned Counsel for the first respondent strenuously contended that the petitioners have not given sufficient reasons to condone the huge delay of 2492 days in filing the petition to restore the application in I.A.No.991 of 2004. He further submitted that the temple is put to lot of inconvenience and hardship by several tenants and that no 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1687 of 2015 indulgence can be shown to anyone of them in the litigation.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent also submitted that the temple has a proposal to regularise the tenants so that the existing tenants can be allowed to continue on fresh terms without prejudice to the rights of the temple. The inordinate delay of 2492 days is unexpected having regard to the nature of averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The physical possession of the property is continuing with the revision petitioners. In such circumstances, having regard to the admitted relationship between the revision petitioners and the first respondent and the fact that several suits have been filed by the temple as against the tenants and that the temple may also regularise some of the tenants despite valid decree has been obtained as against such tenants either for ejectment or for recovery of huge arrears of rent, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioners in the interest of justice.
5.As a result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1687 of 2015 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.303 of 2014 in I.A.No.991 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 1997 is set aside and the petition in I.A.No.303 of 2014 stands allowed, subject to the condition that the revision petitioners pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of default, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without reference to any further order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.08.2020
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
SRM/cmr
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli.
5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1687 of 2015
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
SRM/cmr
C.R.P.(MD)No.1687 of 2015
06.08.2020
6/6
http://www.judis.nic.in