LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-116

P.PALANIVEL Vs. MUTHUSAMY

Decided On July 13, 2020
P.PALANIVEL Appellant
V/S
MUTHUSAMY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner filed suit against the respondents in O.S.No.87 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, for partition. After trial, the said suit was dismissed. Against which, the petitioner filed appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, and the said memorandum of appeal was retuned by the Registry of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode. There was delay of 673 days in representing the said appeal memorandum. Therefore, the petitioner filed affidavit in support of Petition in I.A.18 of 2013 seeking to condone the delay of 673 days in representing the delay. The said petition was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode. Challenging the said order of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, petitioner is before this court, by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner filed appeal memorandum against the order passed in O.S.No.87 of 2004 before the Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode, within the period of limitation, the said memorandum of appeal was returned for some defects and three weeks time was given to rectify the defects in representing the memorandum of appeal. It is stated by the petitioner advocate that after the appeal memorandum papers returned back by the Registry of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, he misplaced the bundle and he could not trace out inspite of his best efforts. Therefore, he could not represent the matter. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that two years delay is not properly explained and even after knowing that appeal memorandum was returned with some defects, no steps taken immediately and only after two years, it was represented. After discussing the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contentions, the trial judge, came to the conclusion that the enormous delay of two years, if condoned will defeat the ends of justice.