C.R.P.No.212 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.212 of 2023

and

C.M.P.No.1725 of 2023

P.J.Uma Maheswari

... Petitioner

Vs.

K.Thangaian

... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.09.2022 in

E.A.No.58 of 2020 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012 on the

file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur and consequently allow the

E.A.No.58 of 2020 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Thangadurai

O R D E R

The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order

dated 12.09.2022 passed in E.A.No.58 of 2020 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 in

R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012.

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.212 of 2023

2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor / tenant and the

respondent is the decree holder / landlord, who filed R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2012

for eviction on the ground for owner’s occupation. The Rent Controller

allowed the R.C.O.P and ordered for eviction. The revision petitioner

preferred an Appeal in R.C.A.No.37 of 2021, which is pending. Meanwhile,

the decree holder filed E.P.No.34 of 2019 and the Execution Court allowed

the execution petition and delivery was ordered.

3. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that she had not

participated in the execution proceedings, as summons were not served to her

in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the Execution Petition was allowed

exparte on 19.12.2019 and delivery was ordered in the year 2020.

Subsequently, the revision petitioner / tenant filed E.A.No.58 of 2020 to

condone the delay of of 312 days in E.P.No.34 of 2019, which was

adjudicated by the Trial Court elaborately.

4. The findings of the Trial Court reveal that delivery was ordered in

the main Execution Petition on 28.02.2020. The revision petitioner / judgment

debtor was set exparte on 19.12.2019 itself. However, the revision petitioner /

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.212 of 2023

judgment debtor kept quiet for a long time and allowed the Execution Court

to pass order on delivery and at a later point of time came out with a petition

to condone the delay of 312 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte

order dated 19.12.2019. Even after the exparte order, the main Execution

Petition was allowed and delivery was ordered on 28.02.2020.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the E.A Court found that

the revision petitioner / tenant has not come out with convincing reasons for

the purpose of condoning the delay of 312 days in filing a petition to set aside

the exparte order dated 19.12.2019.

6. Long delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Uncondonable

delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any acceptable reasons. Reasons

are life-line for condoning enormous delay in filing petitions. Thus, Court

cannot condone such long delay in a mechanical manner. Law of Limitation is

substantive. Condonation of delay is exceptional. Thus, based on insufficient

or in-genuine reasons, such long delay cannot be condoned by the Courts,

which would cause prejudice to the interest to the other parties.

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.212 of 2023

7. In the present case, the respondent / landlord filed a petition, which

was allowed and the Appeal filed by the revision petitioner is pending and

there is no stay. Meanwhile, the decree holder filed an execution petition and

the revision petitioner / tenant was set exparte on 19.12.2019 and delivery

was ordered in the main execution petition on 28.02.2020. Even after the

delivery of possession the respondent / landlord is unable to take possession

of the property from the revision petitioner tenant, which is unfortunate. The

infective implementation