Singaravel v. Mangayarkarasi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Singaravel

...Petitioner

Versus

1.Mangayarkarasi 2.Paramasivam 3.Rajendran 4.Ramachandran

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, made in I.A.No.119 of 2008, in unnumbered A.S.No. of 2008, dated 08.02.2010.

For Petitioners :Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for J.Ramakrishnan For Respondents :No appearance O R D E R This Court, by an order dated 29.03.2021, allowed the Civil Revision Petition on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. The order further directs that the revision petitioner has to deposit the said amount in a Nationalized Bank for a period of one year, which would be renewable automatically from time to time and hand over the original receipt to the Appellate Court for safe custody and the proof of the same shall be filed before this Court on or before 21.04.2021.

3. Today, when the matter is called for hearing, Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, representing Mr.J.Ramakrishnan counsel on records for petitioner submitted a copy of the communication sent by him to the petitioner by RPAD informing the condition imposed by this Court on 29.3.2021 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondents and inspite of the same, the order of this Court has not been complied with by the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not complied the conditional order.

4. The main Civil Revision Petition is arising out of an order dated 08.02.2010 made in I.A.No.119 of 2008 in unnumbered First Appeal on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram. The said I.A was filed to condone the delay of 2322 days in representing the Appeal papers.

5. Though the delay is enormous, considering the fact that the delay is only in representing the Appeal papers, my predecessor, by order dated 29.03.2021 thought it fit to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to conduct his case on merits and therefore put him on terms by directing him to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-. The revision petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, failed to capitalize the opportunity given to him and committed default in complying with the conditional order. Since the condition imposed by this Court by order dated 29.03.2021 is not complied, this Court has no hesitation in dismissing the revision.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. 29.04.2022 ub Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order S.SOUNTHAR , J.

ub

To The Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

29.04.2022