A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam v. Government Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.8 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD) No.43 of 2018 Arulmigu Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadsamy Deity Arulmigu Sri Vembadi Sudalaimandasamy Kovil, Kottarakurichi, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District Through its Paramparai Tharmakartha/Poosari Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham S/o.Late Theivathadiya Pillai, Door No.1/103, Utchimahali Amman Kovil Street, Kottarakurichi, Srivaikuntam Taluk.

... Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/Plaintiff -vsThe Government of Tamil Nadu Through its District Collector, Korampallam, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondent/ Respondents/Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.239 of 2017 in O.S.No.219 of 2011, dated 23.06.2017, on the file of the District Munsif Court, 1/6

Srivaikundam.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vellaichamy For Respondent : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Section 115 of C.P.C, against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.239 of 2017 in O.S.No.219 of 2011, dated 23.06.2017, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. He filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction.

3. According to the petitioner, the suit was dismissed for default on 28.06.2016. However, he has filed an application for restoration with a delay of 82 days. The petitioner has prayed the trial Court to condone the delay, on the ground that he was suffering from fever and leg pain. However, the learned trial Judge, while rejecting the plea of the petitioner, relied upon the various Circulars of the High Court.

2/6

4. This Court has perused the R.O.Cs, which have been referred to by the learned trial Judge. In the above R.O.Cs, this Court has directed the District Judiciary to dispose of the old matters in a time bound manner. However, in the impugned order, though the learned trial Judge referred all the circulars, did not advert any reasons as to why she has disbelieved the statement of the petitioner.

5. Here the very delay is only 82 days. Further what the petitioner wants an order on merit. Every one may affect by illness, and in such an event there may be some delay. It is a settled proposition of law that the word "Sufficient Cause" shall receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 575 (Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs Kuntal Kumari).

6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, thereby, allowing the application for condoning the delay of 82 days. However, this Court would like to test to the 3/6

bonafide of the petitioner by awarding costs.

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed thereby condoning the delay, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed without any further reference to the order of this Court. Both parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the case, since the matter is of the year 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

06.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi 4/6

To

1. The District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

2. The District Collector, Korampallam, Thoothukudi District.

Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

ebsi C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.8 of 2018 06.07.2023 6/6