Madras High Court
Karuppiah vs T.Ramavelar on 9 February, 2018
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(NPD)(MD)No.2451 of 2016
Karuppiah ... Petitioner
vs.
T.Ramavelar ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
against the order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2016 in O.S.No.130 of 2010 dated
22.08.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Anandan
^For Respondent : Mr.K.Vamanan
:ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2016 in O.S.No.130 of 2010 dated 22.08.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is plaintiff and the respondent is defendant. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.130 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, for permanent injunction. While the suit was posted for hearing of the petitioner side on 10.06.2014, due to the non appearance of the revision petitioner, the suit was dismissed for default. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.118 of 2016 to condone the delay of 543 days in filing the restoration petition. In the condone delay petition, the revision petitioner contended that while the suit was posted for hearing of the petitioner/plaintiff on 10.06.2014, the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and taking native treatment and hence, the above delay occurred. The respondent/defendant counter contending that the petitioner was deliberately absent on 10.06.2014 without any reason and the delay of 543 days is not duly explained.
3.The Trial Court dismissed the condone delay petition holding that the petitioner has not explained the delay through oral and documentary evidence except by merely stating that on the relevant date, he was suffering from jaundice which is not acceptable.
4.Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is dragging on the matter and therefore, prayed for direction for early disposal of the suit.
5.Though the delay of 543 days is inordinate and unexplained, this Court in the interest of justice feels that ends of justice would be met by condoning the delay on terms. Further, it is also the settled legal position that merits of the matter should be looked instead throwing it on the aspect of delay.
6.Accordingly, the impugned order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2016 in O.S.No.130 of 2010 dated 22.08.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, is set aside and I.A.No.118 of 2016 would stand allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the suit which is of the year 2010, the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.
To The District Munsif, Aranthangi.
.