Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 139
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
Kumaresan & Others
Versus
Sabasthiyan (deceased) & Others
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2568 & 2569 of 2013
Decided On : 23-01-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:P.R. Thiruneelakandan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Veeramani, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for acceptable explanations for delays in legal proceedings and the consequences of abatement, emphasizing the necessity of timely actions in such cases.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Legal Representatives - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - I.A.Nos.124/2006 and 125/2006 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two interlocutory applications filed by the revision petitioners, claiming to be the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff, for condoning delays in filing applications to bring them on record and to restore a dismissed suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision petitioners failed to provide acceptable explanations for the delays and the confusion created in the pleadings. It concluded that there was no defect in the trial court's orders dismissing the applications.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delays in filing applications to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and to restore the dismissed suit, and the confusion in the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the law does not require an application for condoning the delay in filing a legal representative petition and that acceptable explanations for delays must be provided. It also highlighted the consequences of abatement and the necessity of timely actions in such cases.
Final Decision: Both civil revision petitions were dismissed with no order as to cost.
1. C.R.P.No.2568/2013 has been filed challenging the order of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil dated 17.08.2011 made in I.A.No.124/2006 in O.S.No.205/2004 on the file of the said judge. The said interlocutory application was filed by the revision petitioners, who are 3 in number, claiming them to be the legal representatives of Ramachandran (deceased), who figured as plaintiff No.3 in the above said suit. The said interlocutory application was filed for condoning the delay of 709 days in filing an application to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased Ramachandran.
2. C.R.P.No.2569/2013 has been filed by the revision petitioners 1 to 3, who claimed to be the legal representatives of the deceased Ramachandran, who figured as plaintiff No.3 in the above said suit against the order of the learned trial judge dated 17.08.2011 made in I.A.No.125/2006 in O.S.No.205/2004. The said interlocutory application had been filed for condoning the delay of 139 days in filing the application to restore the above said suit, which was dismissed for default on 5.10.2005.
3. The learned trial judge, after hearing, dismissed both the applications by impugned orders dated 17.08.2011 made in I.A.Nos.124/2006 and 125/2006 in O.S.No.205/2004 respectively. The said orders are sought to be challenged in the present revision petitions.
4. O.S.No.205/2004 came to be filed initially by one Utthiriga Mary and Yesu Mary, who figured as plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the respondents herein. Subsequently, Ramachandran was impleaded as Plaintiff No.3 by virtue of an order dated 16.10.1992 on the premise that he had purchased one of the suit properties under sale deeds dated 09.05.1991 and 10.05.1991. The following were the reliefs prayed for in the plaint:-
"1) the first item of the suit properties should be declared to be the absolute property of the plaintiffs;
2) the second and third items of the suit properties should be declared to be the absolute properties of the first plaintiff (Utthiriga Mary);
3) the defendants should be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties;
and
4) in case the court would come to the conclusion that the defendants had trespassed into the property they should be directed to hand over possession of the first item of the suit properties to the plaintiffs and the second and third items of the suit properties to the first plaintiff."
5. During the pendency of the suit, Utthiriga Mary, the first plaintiff was reported dead. But nothing has been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the above said applications filed by the revision petitioners as to whether Uthiriga Mary and Yesu Mary, who figured as plaintiffs 1 and 2, were alive or not. The revision petitioners had simply stated that their father had been impleaded as third plaintiff and he also died on 24.04.2003. It seems a restoration application came to filed after the suit had abated and dismissed for default, without filing applications to set aside abatement and to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside abatement. On the other hand, such an application also came to be dismissed on 22.12.2004. Thereafter, the revision petitioners seem to have filed an application to restore the said application.
6. Under the said circumstances, the above said two applications I.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2006 came to be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the first one for condoning the delay of 709 days in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Ramachandran (third plaintiff) and the second one for condoning the delay of 139 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default on 5.10.2009. In the applications, the revision petitioners had noted against the first respondent Sabasthiyan and the third respondent Anthoni samy that they w
