Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. SOUNTHAR
S.PARAMESWARAN – Appellant
Versus
S.SAROJINI – Respondent
Delay - Civil Procedure - Act Section List - The court analyzed provisions related to the condonation of delay in civil proceedings, focusing on the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for delays, as illustrated by the application discussed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 2328 days in filing a petition to set aside an exparte decree, claiming ignorance of the proceedings due to residing in a different city.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, despite residing in another city, had received summons and engaged counsel, thus failing to establish sufficient reason for the lengthy delay in filing.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2328 days in setting aside the exparte decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere change of residence does not exempt a party from following up on court proceedings and that a substantial delay without valid reasoning cannot be condoned.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 2328 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.629 of 2010 seeking declaration that Settlement Deeds dated 23.04.2010 and 02.06.2010 registered vide Document Nos.2199, 2200 and 2803 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore District are null and void and also for partition of plaintiffs' 2/8 shares in the suit property and for other reliefs.
3. The said suit was decreed exparte on 10.02.2012. Thereafter, the instant application in I.A.No.701 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner on 06.07.2018 seeking to set aside the exparte decree with a delay of 2328 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the petitioner that he was residing at Chennai and hence, he had no knowledge about the date of hearing. It was further stated that as he failed to attend the Court on the date fixed for filing of written statement, an exparte decree was passed against him.
4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that reason assigned by the petitioner is not sufficient to condone the huge delay of 2328 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
5. Merely because, the petitioner is residing in a different city, he cannot claim that he had no knowledge about the decree. The petitioner received the suit summons and engaged counsel to contest the case. It is his duty to contact his counsel and enquire about the progress of the case. From the reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it is seen that the petitioner failed to follow his case for nearly 6 ½ years. In such circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Court below that petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of
2328 days, is correct and the same is not vitiated by any perversity.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm To The III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
27.02.2024
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
