C.R.P.No.2860 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.No.2860 of 2021

V.Narayanasamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

Vanchikodi

... Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure

Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order of dismissal passed by the

learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dated 02.08.2021 made in

I.A.No.469 of 2018 in O.S.S.R.No.721 of 2013.

For Petitioner

: Mr. T.Gowthaman

For Respondent : Mr.T.Thiyagarajan

O R D E R

The present Revision has been filed to set aside the fair and

decreetal order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal District Judge,

Chengalpattu dated 02.08.2021 made in I.A.No.469 of 2018 in

O.S.S.R.No.721 of 2013.

1/10

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

C.R.P.No.2860 of 2021

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.SR.No.721 of 2013 has

preferred I.A.No.469 of 2018 to condone the delay of 1835 days in

representing the plaint in the origial suit. The said suit was filed to declare

the title of the petitioner – plaintiff in respect of the Schedule 'B' petition

mentioned property and for a relief of permanent injunction. The said plaint

was originally presented before the court below on 20.02.2013 and the

same was returned by the Registry for rectifying certain defects by granting

time of one month for representation, whereas, the petitioner / plaintiff

failed to represent the same within the said time. The court below

dismissed the petition on the ground that no prima facie case was made

out and that there is no sufficient reason let in on the side of the petitioner

to condone the delay. As against the same, the petitioner is before this

Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the delay in

representing the suit papers was only because of the negligence of the

earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner and the petitioner had no role to

play in the same. Further, the petitioner had no reason to suspect any

lacuna on the part of his earlier counsel in as much as he had been

pursuing another suit connected with the suit property diligently. Hence

prayed to condone the delay by setting aside the order passed by the court

2/10

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

C.R.P.No.2860 of 2021

below. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the

order of this Court in C.R.P. (MD) No.56 of 2017 [Nagamani Vs.Kanagaraj].

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that

already a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2008 was filed as against the vendor of the

petitioner in respect of the suit property and subsequently, the petitioner

was also made as a party, wherein the petitioner had contested the case

through the same previous counsel, thus, there is no iota of truth in the

contention of the petitioner- plaintiff and prays to dismiss the present

Revision.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his case, has

also relied on the judgments as stated below:-

(i) Judment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 11

Supreme Court Cases 183 [Katari Suryanarayana & Others Vs.Koppisetti

Subba Rao and Others]

(ii) Judment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) SCC

Online SC 1260 [Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and

Others]

(iii) Judgment of this Court reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 8675

[Sri Sai Pressing Vs. G.S.Muthu and Another]

3/10

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

C.R.P.No.2860 of 2021

(iv) Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 SCC Online Mad 762

[S.Rajamanickam Vs. Parvathiammal (died) and others]

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

documents placed on record.

7. On going through the documents placed on record, it is seen that

the suit, viz., O.S.SR.No.721 of 2013 was filed in the year 2013 and

representation