K.Ramu v. Evergreen Industries Pvt. Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 08.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and CMP.No.10209 of 2024 1.K.Ramu 2.K.Mukunthan 3.K.Rangaraj ... Petitioners
Versus
Evergreen Industries Pvt Ltd Represented by its Manager Shri Anupam Mishra, S/o. P.N.Mishra ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and final order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge of the Nilgris at Udhagamandalam in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.C.F.R.No.3665 of 2023.
For petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli For respondent : Mr.M.Rajasekhar
O R D E R
Challenging the impugned order rejecting the application filed to condone the delay of 586 days in filing the appeal, the present revision has been filed. Page 1 / 6
2. The suit has been originally filed for recovery of advance amount paid by the respondent in agreement of sale dated 25.07.2011. The suit was decreed on 08.01.2021. To set aside the said decree and judgment, application has been taken out by the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 817 days in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned in this application is that since his sister in law was suffering from arthotedis ailment, she was admitted in the hospital in Coimbatore for medical treatment from 01.01.2021 to 01.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner could not meet his advocate to file the appeal in time. The respondent opposed that application contending that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Trial Court, considering the conduct of the parties held that sufficient reasons has not been shown to condone the delay and dismissed the application. Hence, this order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner sought to condone the delay of 817 days, the Trial Court itself found that there is 586 days, hence, seeks liberal approach by this Court to contest the matter on merits. Hence, seeks for allowing this revision Page 2 / 6
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The suit is filed for recovery of advance amount paid towards the sale agreement entered between the parties. Payment of advance amount and agreement is not disputed. Now, on the question of condoning the delay, normally, when the Court finds that reasons assigned by the parties are bonafide which prevented the parties from appearing before the Court, the Court would normally lean in favour of the parties to participate in the trial. When the reasons assigned are found not bonafide and made only in order to protract the proceedings, even the length of delay is very small, the Court will not extend such benefit to the litigant.
6. On perusal of the entire materials, the fact remains that after obtaining the exparte decree on 08.01.2021, the execution proceedings were initiated on 01.06.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the Execution Court and filed a counter. Thereafter, the impugned application has been filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. That application has been filed on 14.07.2023 and the application was returned for various reasons and then represented with a delay of 244 days only on 14.09.2023. In every stage, the revision petitioner was lethargic Page 3 / 6
and not in a position to explain the reasons satisfactorily. The reasons assigned in the affidavit that his sister in law suffering from arthotedis ailment taking treatment, therefore, the was residing in Coimbatore is also highly improbable. Arthotedis is not a serious one and therefore, the contention that he was all along in the hospital in Coimbatore for years together is highly improbable. Further, there is no materials whatsoever placed before the Trial Court to show that his sister in law has undergone the treatment.
7. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction properly and had analysed the conduct of the parties. Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this revision and accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
08.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order dhk Page 4 / 6
To,
1. The District Judge District Court of the Nilgris Udhagamandalam Page 5 / 6
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk 08.01.2025 Page 6 / 6