LAWS(MAD)-1958-1-12

VELU PILLAI Vs. SEVUGA PERUMAL PILLAI

Decided On January 29, 1958
VELU PILLAI Appellant
V/S
Sevuga Perumal Pillai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19th June, 1956, the District Munsif of Tirumagalam passed an order holding that E.P. No. 297 of 1955 was barred by limitation and that the defendant was entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs. 7 which he had paid on 13th February, 1956. The decree -holder who seeks to canvass the correctness of this order in revision filed a petition, which has been numbered as S.R. No. 17267. Under Rule 41 -A(2) of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court, such a petition has to be presented within ninety days from the date of the order complained of. The same rule empowers the Court to excuse the delay where sufficient cause is shown to its satisfaction. In the present case there was a delay of 268 days in filing the petition. The only ground on the basis of which I am invited to excuse the delay is that the petitioner mislaid the bundle in his village. That, in my opinion, is not a sufficient reason for excusing the delay.

(2.) WHEN I expressed this view, learned Counsel for the petitioner put forward the contention that Rule 41 -A(2) is ultra vires the rule -making powers of this Court and that he is entitled to come to this Court regardless of the ninety days specified in that rule. In support of this contention he referred to the decision in Abdul Ganny v. Mus. Russell A.I.R. 1930 Rang. 229 .

(3.) SECTION 122, Code of Civil Procedure, empowers the High Courts to make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the Civil Courts subject to their superintendence. The section specifically empowers the High Court by such rules not merely to annul or alter any of the rules in the first Schedule of the Code but also to add to them. This is a comprehensive power and is sufficient to empower the High Court to make a rule of the kind embodied in Rule 41 -A(2). Section 128, Code of Civil Procedure, to which the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred, does not in any way cut down the ambit of Section 122. The first Sub -section of Section 128 specifically states that the rules 'may provide for any matters relating to the procedure of civil Courts.' The enumeration that follows in the second Sub -section is made 'without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub -section (1)'. I am clearly of the view that Rule 41 -A(2) of the Appellate Side Rules is intra vires of the powers of this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.