Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2027
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
M. Gopi – Appellant
Versus
A.S. Sasikala & Another – Respondents
C.R.P.No. 2797 of 2018
Decided On : 29-09-2020
For the Petitioner:P. Veena Suresh, Advocate
For the Respondents:D. Shivakumaran, Advocate
The importance of providing a valid explanation for non-compliance with court orders and the need for diligence in prosecuting legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Extension of Time - Civil Revision Petition - Limitation Act 1963, Order 9 Rule 13 - 1963 (Limitation Act) - Order 9 Rule 13
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title to the property, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed exparte, and the defendants filed an application to set aside the exparte decree. The application was dismissed due to non-compliance with the condition to pay costs. Subsequently, the defendants sought to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendants failed to provide a valid explanation for the delay and had been negligent in prosecuting the proceedings. The Trial Court's decision to extend the time for compliance with the order was set aside, and the application was dismissed.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, delay in seeking extension of time, negligence in prosecuting the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of providing a valid explanation for non-compliance with court orders and the need for diligence in prosecuting legal proceedings.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, the order granting extension of time was set aside, and the application seeking extension of time was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.03.2018 in I.A.No. 307 of 2017 in O.S.No. 45 of 2013 on the file of the II – Additional District Court, Salem.)
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 2013 has come up with this civil revision petition, aggrieved by an order by the Trial Court extending the time for payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- as per the conditional order dated 03.11.2014.
2. The suit in O.S.No.45 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration of his title to the suit property, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed exparte on 02.08.2014. The defendants filed an application to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.237 of 2014 on 08.08.2014. The said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 03.11.2014, subject to the condition that the petitioners therein pay a costs of Rs.1,000/- on or before 20.11.2014 and to cross-examine the P.W.1 on 21.11.2014.
3. From 21.11.2014, the application was adjourned for various reasons up to 01.04.2015. On 01.04.2015, the Trial Court recorded that the conditional order dated 03.11.2014 regarding payment of Rs.1,000/- was not complied with and dismissed I.A.No.237 of 2014. When the things stood thus, the respondents herein, nearly after two years filed I.A.No.308 of 2016 on 11.08.2016 seeking to condone the delay of 744 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. The affidavit filed in support of the said application reads as follows:-
“2. I hum by submit that the decree obtained by the plaintiff is Ex-parte decree. I submit that the previous counsel did not give me proper instruction and case details. I was misguided by my Advocate that he had filed condone delay petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 and Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the ex-parte decree and it was allowed with cost of Rs.3,000/-. When I verified in the Court, I came to know that no such petition was filed. I totally relied on my Advocate and he misguided me stating false details.”
4. The affidavit filed in I.A.No. 308 of 2016 was totally silent about the reasons for the delay. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No. 308 of 2016, the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No. 1081 of 2017. This Court by order dated 22.03.2017 dismissed the civil revision petition observing as follows:-
“4. On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioners have already filed an application in I.A.No. 237 of 2014 in O.S.No. 45 of 2013 to set aside the exparte decree dated 01.08.2014 and the said application was allowed on a condition to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-. Even though the case has been adjourned from time to time till 01.04.2015 for payment of cost, cost has not been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the said application I.A.No. 237 of 2014 in O.S.No. 45 of 2013 was dismissed on 01.04.2015. Therefore, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application in I.a.No. 308 of 2016, stating that there is no bonafide on the part of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court, seeking extension of time, for payment of the cost.
6. This civil revision petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Court below for filing an application seeking extension of time, for payment of cost, if permissible under law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5. After the dismissal of the civil revision petition by this Court, the petitioner have come up with the present application in I.A.No. 307 of 2017, seeking extension of time to comply with the conditi
