← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/3306/2016allowed

Kuzhanthaivelu v. Ramasamy

2016-11-29Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Sasidharan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(P.D.) No.3306 of 2016 1.Kuzhanthaivelu 2.Dhanasekaran

...Petitioners

versus 1.Ramasamy 2.Kamalam

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.22 of 2015 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal dated 08.01.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondents : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman for R1 No appearance for R2

O R D E R

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court for non-prosecution on 09.03.2015. The petitioners, thereafter, filed I.A.No.22 of 2015 to restore the appeal. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that sufficient reasons were not given. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

3. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 02.06.2011 in I.A.No.486 of 2009 was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners failed to appear before the Court. The matter was not posted for the appearance of the petitioners. It was posted only for hearing.

4. The petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.22 of 2015 explained the reasons for their absence on 09.03.2015. According to the petitioners, since they were out of station, they could not appear before the Court and make

the counsel to argue the matter. In a matter of this nature, the Trial Court should have shown some leniency. There is no question of dismissing the restoration application only on the ground that each days' delay has not been explained. I am therefore of the view that the Trial Court was not correct in dismissing the application.

5. The order dated 8 January 2016 is set aside. The application in I.A.No.22 of 2015 is allowed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 2013 is restored to file.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. . No costs.

29.11.2016 Index : Yes/No svki To The Principal District Court, Namakkal

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

(svki) C.R.P.(P.D.) No.3306 of 2016 29.11.2016

http://www.judis.nic.in