C.M.P. (MD) No.8362 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 16.12.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

C.M.P. (MD) No.8362 of 2019

and

C.R.P.(MD)No.SR9038 of 2019

S.Parameswaran Alias Poulose (Died)

1. Leelambika,

2. Sadasivan,

3. George Kutti @ Thampiraj,

4. Ganesh,

5. Madhu

6. Vinu,

... Petitioners / Petitioners

Vs.

K.Jayachandran

... Respondent / Respondent

PRAYER in C.M.P. (MD) No.8362 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Petition

is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of

1430 days in filing the above Civil Revision Petition against the

Judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.420 of 2014 in

O.S.No.441 of 2011 on the file of the Learned II Additional District

Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

PRAYER in C.R.P.(MD)No.SR9038 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition is

filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the

fair and decreetal order, dated 28.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.420 of

2014 in O.S.No.441 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional

District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

For Petitioners

:

Mr. G.Ramanathan

For Respondent

: Mr. K.N.Thambi

O R D E R

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of

Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1430 days in filing the

above Civil Revision Petition against the Judgment and decree dated

28.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.420 of 2014 in O.S.No.441 of 2011 on the

file of the Learned II Additional District Munsif Court,

Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.M.P. (MD) No.8362 of 2019

2. The petitioners 1 to 4 herein are the defendants 2 to 5 in

the suit, the petitioners 5 and 6 herein are the legal

representatives of the first defendant and the respondent herein is

the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit

in O.S.No.441 of 2011 seeking for a prayer of declaration and for

recovery of possession. The suit was decreed on 12.03.2014.

Against which, the first defendant filed a petition to condone the

delay of 180 days in filing an exparte set aside petition and that

petition was dismissed with costs by the trial Court. Against the

dismissal order, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision Petition

and there is a delay of 1430 days and this Civil Miscellaneous

Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1430 days in filing the

Civil Revision Petition.

3. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that I.A.No.420

of 2014 was filed by the first defendant to set aside the exparte

decree in O.S.No.441 of 2011, dated 12.03.2014 and that after the

exparte decree, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to

condone the delay of 180 days was filed and that petition was

dismissed. The first defendant was ill and was not able to contact

the lower Court counsel and later the first defendant died on

03.08.2016 due to his illness. The first defendant was looking

after the case and the other defendants and the legal

representatives of the first defendant were not aware of the order

of dismissal and only on notice in the execution petition, they came

to know about the dismissal order and hence, they filed this

petition, to condone the delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition

against the order in I.A.No.420 of 2014.

4. On the side of the respondent / plaintiff, it is stated that

there were five defendants in the suit, the first defendant was aged

about 85 years, the second defendant was aged about 53 years, the

third defendant was aged about 55 years, the fourth defendant was

aged about 35 years and the fifth defendant was aged about 33 years

old. Even if the first defendant was in ailment, the other

defendants, who are all major might have continued to contest the

case. It is further stated that the defendants filed vakalat and

they filed writt