A.Selvam v. V.Sowmiya Narayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.M.P.(MD)No.6002 of 2017 and C.R.P.(MD)No.SR22981 of 2017 A.Selvam ... Petitioner/Petitioner Plaintiff Vs.
1.V.Sowmiya Narayanan ... Respondents/1st Respondent 1st Defendant 2.S.Kailasa Prabhu ... Respondent/ 2nd Respondent 2nd Defendant 3.A.Marisamy 4.A.Kalaiarasi ... Respondent/ 3rd & 4th Respondents 3rd & 4th Defendants Prayer in C.M.P.(MD)No.6002 of 2017 :Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 200 days in filing this Civil Revision Petition which was happened due to the reasons stated and further to call for the records in I.A.No.355 of 2016 in O.S.No.657 of 2013 and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town as ultravires and further pass an order directing the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town to allow the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 11.03.
2016 as it is being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parities and to avoid further litigation among the parties. Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)No.SR22981 of 2017 :Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for records and set aside the Fair Order and Decretal Order dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town in I.A.No.355 of 2016 in O.S.No.657 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town and allow this civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muthuvel For Respondents : No appearance ***
ORDER
The petition is filed to condone the delay of 200 days in preferring this Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of the application Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint. The reasons stated in the affidavit for condoning the delay are as follows:
"9. I respectfully submit that the case diary has also been mentioned as both the I.A.No.355 of 2016 was dismissed and IA No.532 of 2013 for ad interim injunction was said to be disposed on the same day for the reason of the matter ripened for Trial. My counsel intimated that the amendment petition was dismissed and I was under the impression that the petition was dismissed for default and filed a petition to restore the amendment petition was dismissed and I was under the impression that the petition was dismissed for default and filed a petition to restore the amendment petition: I was under the impression that the petition shall be restored. Therefore I did not file any copy application to get the Ex-Order and Fair-Order in the I.A.No.355 of 2016 in time.
Later on only I had understood that the Learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town has passed an order of Dismissal on 21.11.2016 itself for the reason of that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of declaration with respect to the title of the suit property. Since the petitioner is a cultivating Tenant, himself had prayed not to be evicted from the suit land otherwise than under due process of Law. In view of such order, I applied copy application on 20.02.2017 for getting certified copies Ex-Order and Fair-Order to file this Civil Revision Petition against the Dismissal Order dated 21.11.2016. The Order copy was made on 13.04.2017 and delivered on 17.04.2017.
In these circumstances there is a delay of 200 days in filing the Revision Petition against the Dismissal Order, that has to be revised and the amendment petition has to be allowed by an order of Revision by this Hon'ble Court or otherwise I will be put heavy and irreparable loss."
2. It appears that the revision petitioner was under the impression that his application for amendment was dismissed for default. Later on only he came to know that his application was dismissed on merits and not for default, by that time, the time for preferring the revision was expired.
3. The Revision petitioner has further stated that he was under the impression that his application was dismissed for default and that he can restore the petition at a later point of time. But
there is no indication that the revision petitioner has filed any application for restoration. If his impression is a bona fide one, he should taken steps to restore the application.
4. Furthermore, on a perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the Trial Court has gone into the merits of the case and has taken appropriate decision, holding that in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff except due process of law, the plaintiff who is admittedly a cultivating tenant have no right to question the sale deed pertaining the suit property, he cannot seek for declaration to declare a power deed and two sale deeds with respect to the suit property as null and void. It is entirely a different cause of action. If the Revision Petition has any grievance regarding the title to the suit property with reference to power deed and two sale deeds, it is for him to agitate in separate proceedings and not in the present suit for bare injunction. Allowing the Amendment Petition will entirely change the character of the suit and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the amendment petition. Even on merits, the Revision Petition has not made out a case for condoning the delay.
5. This Court finds no reasonable cause to condone the delay and no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Civil Revision Petition (MD)No.SR 22981 of 2017 is rejected. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.
+One cc to Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan, Advocate, SR.No.63190 dss/mrn RL/3C/3P/KP/SAR1/10/8/2017 C.M.P.(MD)No.6002 of 2017 and C.R.P.(MD)No.SR22981 of 2017 30.06.2017