SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
D. Selvarajan - Petitioner
Versus
A.N. Thenraj - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 9078 of 2016 in C.R.P.Sr.No.29032 of 2014
Decided On : 03-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. J. Dhanalakshmi for Mr. G. Saravanan.
For the Respondent: Mr. G. Prakash.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section XLVII Rule 1 - Civil Revision Petition was filed against Fair and Decreetal order passed in R.CO.P., which was filed for evicting petitioner / tenant - R.C.O.P was allowed and eviction was ordered by Rent Controller - Held, Court is of considered opinion that reasons stated for condoning such an enormous delay is neither candid nor convincing and more so, with reference to the order of eviction passed, petitioner / tenant also vacated the premises and thus, Court is not inclined to condone delay of 759 days in representing the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P - C.M.P. dismissed.

ORDER :

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 759 days in representing the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.Sr.No.29032 of 2014.

2. The Civil Revision Petition was filed against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.01.2014 passed in R.CO.P.No.21 of 2008, which was filed for evicting the petitioner / tenant. The R.C.O.P was allowed and the eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller.

3. The revision petitioner filed a petition under Section XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the decree and judgment passed against the revision petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the Suit Scheduled Property. The said petition was filed in M.P.No.86 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008 and the said Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 21.01.2014, against which the Civil Revision Petition was filed on 31.03.2016, after a lapse of two (2) years and thereafter, the revision petitioner has not pursued the Civil Revision Petition case papers by applying the defects noted by the Registry, High Court.

4. There is a delay of 759 days and the revision petitioner has not stated any acceptable reason for condoning such an enormous delay in representing the case papers. The affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petition states that the Clerk in the Advocate office had left the office and the case papers were misplaced and mixed with the disposed cases. Thus, the case was unable to be represented before the Registry, High Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has now brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the eviction order, the revision petitioner / tenant was evicted from the premises.

6. Considering all these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons stated for condoning such an enormous delay is neither candid nor convincing and more so, with reference to the order of eviction passed, the petitioner / tenant also vacated the premises and thus, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 759 days in representing the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.Sr.No.29032 of 2014.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.9078 of 2022 stand dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.Sr.No.29032 of 2014 stands rejected. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top