Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 21691
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
B. CANNIAPPIN – Appellant
Versus
BAGUIRADY – Respondent
The judgment highlights the importance of the trial court's discretion in restoring dismissed cases, prioritizing justice and speedy resolution in partition matters.
Headnote:
Discretion - Civil Revision - Indian Civil Procedure Code - Sections Applicable - The court reaffirmed the inherent power to restore a case dismissed for default, interpreting sufficient cause under Section 151, emphasizing the urgency for speedy resolution in long-pending suits.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought partition and separate possession in the suit. The suit was dismissed for default due to lack of representation. The plaintiff applied for restoration, citing lack of notice to her counsel and personal circumstances preventing her appearance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient cause to restore the suit, noting the plaintiff's valid reasons for absence. It acknowledged the trial judge's discretion in accommodating the request, emphasizing the ongoing nature of partition suits.
Issues: Whether the trial court's decision to restore the suit dismissed for default was warranted based on the circumstances presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio established is that discretion exercised by the trial court in restoration applications is crucial, especially where sufficient cause is evidenced, thereby enabling access to justice.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed.
O R D E R
This civil revision petition is presented against the order in I.A.No.1509 of
2022 in O.S.No.85 of 2010 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry on 07.12.2023.
2. The suit in O.S.No.85 of 2010 had been presented by the first respondent herein seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession. The defendants 5 and 6 also entered appearance and have filed a detailed written statement. When the matter was posted for evidence, the suit was dismissed for default on
19.06.2015.
3. Consequently, the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit.
The reason given by the plaintiff was that notice had not been given to her counsel informing about the proceedings. She would further plead that on account of the said fact the advocates did not appear before the Court and since the plaintiff's elder daughter had given birth to a baby very recently on 18.06.2015 and since she had to take care of her, she was not in a position to appear before the Court in person. In order to substantiate the same, she also produced the birth certificate of her granddaughter.
4. On receipt of the counter from the respondent, the learned Judge had condoned the application to restore the suit, deciding that there was sufficient cause for restoring the suit. Consequently, he allowed the application directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as costs.
5. Learned counsel for the civil revision petitioners submits that the costs has already been received. As against the order restoring the suit, the present revision.
6. The suit is one for partition at the instance of a lady. Her daughter having given birth to a child, she was unable to be present in the Court; neither the advocates were present on account of the fact that there was no information about the proceedings. Be that as it may, the learned trial Judge has exercised his discretion to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the application to restore the suit and consequently restored the suit also. Being a suit for partition, the cause of action arises day-to-day. Even today, the plaintiff is entitled to file a fresh suit for partition.
7. Taking into consideration the discretion having been exercised in favour of the plaintiff in restoring the suit, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry. The learned Judge is requested to take note of the fact that the suit is pending from 2010 and therefore, he shall comply with the administrative instructions given by this Court for disposal of the suits pending for more than ten years and expedite the suit at all stages.
8. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.07.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No KST V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST To The III Additional District Judge Puducherry.
C.R.P. No.2576 of 2024
19.07.2024
