← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/5164/2011dismissed

T. Manickam v. P.C. Thimmarayan

2017-07-06Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.5164 & 5165 of 2011 T.Manickam .. Petitioner Vs.

P.C.Thirumarayan .. Respondent COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 08.08.2007 passed in I.A.No.260 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District and judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, confirming the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.261 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of 2001, dated 08.08.2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sudesh Kumar for M/S. Sun Associates For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Sivaras COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 08.08.2007 passed in I.A.No.260 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of

2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District and judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. The petitioner is plaintiff and the respondent is defendant in O.S.No.219 of 2001. The petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction. When the suit was posted in the list on 24.08.2006 for trial, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, the suit was dismissed for default. The petitioner filed I.A.No.260 of 2007 to condone the delay of 67 days in filing the application to restore the suit in O.S.No.219 of 2001 and I.A.No.261 of 2007 to restore the suit which was dismissed for default on 24.08.2006. After hearing, the application in I.A.No.260 of 2007 to condone the delay in filing the application to restore the suit was allowed on condition that the petitioner pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost to the respondent on or before 08.08.2007. The petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order and therefore, the said application was dismissed on 08.08.2007.

3. In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.260 of 2007, the learned Judge dismissed the I.A.No.261 of 2007, filed to restore the suit on 08.08.2007. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2007 against the order passed in I.A.No.261 of 2007 dated 08.08.2007.

4. The learned Trial Judge, considering all the materials on record and nature of the suit, attitude of the petitioner, order of the dismissal in I.A.No.261 of 2007 and suppression of dismissal of I.A.No.260 of 2007 filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the suit, dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal on 31.03.2011.

5. Against the order dated 08.08.2007 passed in I.A.No.260 of 2007 and judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.22 of 2007, the petitioner has filed the present two Civil Revision Petitions.

6. Heard both the learned counsels for the petitioner and the

respondent and perused the materials on record.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judge has given only 15 days time to comply the conditional order. The learned Judge ought to have granted longer time. This contention is without any merits. The petitioner ought to have filed memo or application for extension of time before the learned Judge. The petitioner has not given any reason for not paying the cost awarded.

8. The learned Judge, considering the fact that the conditional order was not complied within the time stipulated by the Court, dismissed the application on 08.08.2007, giving cogent and valid reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has not given a valid reason for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judge.

9. The learned Judge considering all the materials available on record dismissed the applications by giving cogent and valid reasons. In these circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity

warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 08.08.2007 and 31.03.2011.

10. For the above reason, CRP.No.5164 of 2011 is dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of dismissal of CRP.No.5164 of 2011, the CRP.No.5165 of 2011 is also dismissed.

06.07.2017 Index : Yes/No gsa To

1. The Sub-Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. The District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

gsa C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.5164 & 5165 of 2011 06.07.2017