← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1870/2011dismissed

A.T.Ganapathy v. Pennadam Town Panchayat

2019-03-01Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. N.SATHISH KUMAR CRP NPD No.1870 and 1871 of 2011 A.T.Ganapathy ... Revision petitioners in both revision Vs.

1. Pennadam Town Panchayat (Selection Grade), represented by its Executive Officer, Pennadam

2. Pennadam Town Panchayat (Selection Grade), represented by its President Pennadam ... Respondents in RCOP No.1870/2011

1. The Collector of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore,

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam.

3. The Tahsildar, Thittagudi.

... Respondents in RCOP No.1871/2011

PRAYER in RCOP No.1870/2011: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.573 of 2009 in O.S.No.295 of 2007 by the District Munsifcum-judicial Magistrate, Thittagudi. PRAYER in RCOP No.1871/2011: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.289 of 2010 in O.S.No.295 of 2007 by the District Munsifcum-judicial Magistrate, Thittagudi. For Revision Petitioner : Mr.R.Gururaj (in both revision) For respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan (In CRP 1870/2013) For respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran (In CRP No.1871/2013) COMMON ORDER Both the revision petitions are filed against the orders passed by the trial court in allowing the petitions in I.A.No.573 of 2009 and I.A.No.289 of 2010 in O.S.No.295 of 2007, both filed to condone the delay of 57 days and 220 days respectively in filing a petition to set aside the exparte-decree.

2. The respondents in CRP No.1870/2011 are the defendants 4 and 5 and the respondents in CRP 1871/2011 are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.295 of 2007 and the revisions petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit. The trial court, allowed the applications filed by the defendants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. Against which, both the revisions have been filed.

3. The trial court has exercised its discretion and allowed the defendants to file their written statement to decide the issue on merits by allowing the applications. When the trial court has exercised its discretion, which is towards substantial justice, there is no error or illegality on the orders passed by the trial court.

4. In the result, (i) The Civil Revision petition in CRP No. 1870 of 2011 and CRP No. 1871 of 2011 are dismissed. No costs. (ii) The orders passed by the trial court are confirmed. 01.03.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No speaking/non speaking order mst

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., mst To The District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate, Thittagudi.

CRP NPD No.1870 & 1871 of 2011 01.03.2019