Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Chennimalaigounder v. Special Tahsildar - CRP. NPD No.2055 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2439 (23 July 2007)


DATED : 23/07/2007



CRP. NPD No.2055 of 2007

Chennimalaigounder .. Petitioner Vs

The Special Tahsildar

Adi Dravidar Welfare


Erode District .. Respondent Civil revision petition preferred under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 6.7.2005 made in I.A.No.283 of 2004 in unnumbered CMA No. of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran ORDER

An order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, made in I.A.No.283 of 2004 seeking condonation of delay of 151 days in re-presenting the unnumbered appeal papers before that Court, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition.

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner whose application to condone the delay of 151 days was rejected by the Court below.

3.This Court is of the opinion that no notice is necessary to the respondent's side.

4.After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking into the order under challenge, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the delay should have been condoned by the Court below. Challenging an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the said CMA has been preferred. It is not in controversy that the CMA was filed in time; but, the same was returned for rectification of certain mistakes. When it was re-presented, there was a delay of 151 days. It is to be pointed out that in a case like this, where the delay was 151 days, there was no need for issuing a notice to the opposite party namely the respondent therein, since the delay in re-presentation was a matter between the Court and the party concerned. While there was only a delay of 151 days, a notice was issued to the opposite party. The reason adduced by the petitioner to condone the delay, was that the bundles got mixed, and therefore, the delay was caused by the Counsel's office. Even assuming that it was a fault committed by the Counsel, the party should not be penalised; but, the lower Court had taken a harsh view and has dismissed the application. In a case like this, the Court is expected to take liberal approach and not one what has been done by the Court below, as noticed by the Court in the instant case. Under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court is set aside. The delay is condoned, and the application is allowed. The lower Court is directed to take up the CMA on file if other things are found correct.

5.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. nsv/


The Principal Subordinate Judge



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.