CRP.(NPD)No.2072 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.03.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2072 of 2018

The Tahsildar,

Tiruttani Taluk,

Tiruvallur District.

..

Petitioner

..Vs..

1. D.Devarajan

2.D.Natarajan

..

Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure

Code, to set aside the order dated 23.08.2017 made in I.A.No.444 of 2016, in

O.S.No.89/1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Tirutani by

allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Y.T.Aravind Gosh

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Aloysius Raja Pragash

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging order dated

23.08.2017 made in I.A.No.444 of 2016, in O.S.No.89 of 1999 on the file of the

learned District Munsif Court, Tirutani.

1/6

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

CRP.(NPD)No.2072 of 2018

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the suit was laid by the respondent for the purpose of

getting patta for the bought-in-land and though the Tahsildar is not the

competent person to grant patta for the bought-in-land, the trial Court has not

considered the said fact and simply decreed the suit on the ground that the

Tahsildar/defendant was set ex-parte. He further submitted that though the

District Collector is the competent authority to issue patta, as per BSO 45, in

respect of bought-in-land, the plaintiff has purposefully omitted to implead the

District Collector in the said suit. He would further submit that consequent to

the decree passed by the Court below, an E.P. was filed and the order is yet to

be passed.

3. He further submitted that the petitioner/Tahsildar has filed an

application in I.A.No.444 of 2016 in O.S.No.89 of 1999 before the District

Munsif, Tiruttani seeking condonation of delay of 5816 days in filing the

petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and the same came to be dismissed

without giving any reasons, as against which this Civil Revision Petition is

filed. It is further contended that the decree was passed against the Tahsildar to

issue the patta for the bought-in-land, however, the Tahsildar does not have any

2/6

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

CRP.(NPD)No.2072 of 2018

power to issue patta as on date and the said decree is only a non-executable

decree against the Tahsildar. He further submitted that though this petition has

been filed with a delay of 5816 days, the reason for delay was due to the fact

that the petitioner had unnoticed the Judgment and decree passed by the Court

below and when the notice was served in the Execution Petition, the petitioner

came to know about the fact of the Judgment and decree passed in the suit and

immediately he filed an application to set aside the expart decree along with

condone delay petition, however, without considering the fact that the decree is

a non executable decree, the Court below dismissed the application for

condonation of delay. He further submitted that in the interest of both the

parties, it is just and necessary to condone the delay and thereafter decide the

suit on merits and therefore the order passed by the Court below may be set

aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the delay

may be condoned, because the petitioner has taken a stand that the order has

been passed against him by the authority, who is not competent to issue patta.

3/6

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

CRP.(NPD)No.2072 of 2018

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J

arr

5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the respondent, this Court is of the view it would be appropriate

to condone the delay of 5816 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13

of Civil Procedure Code with costs.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 23.08.2017 made in I.A.No.444 of

2016 in O.S.No