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
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.
A litigant cannot obtain condonation of delay by shifting the entire blame onto their advocate or providing inconsistent and false explanations. The discretionary power to condone delay requires the ....
The delay in representation can be excused if the party makes a case for condoning the delay, and the Court has to ensure that justice does not suffer in such cases.
Sufficient cause is sine qua non for condonation of delay; mercy or equity cannot substitute statutory requirement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.