In this civil revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, whereunder her application to condone the delay of 2204 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 152(3) of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act?) has been dismissed by the Court below.
2. It is found that surcharge proceedings were initiated as against the property concerned as well as the petitioner's husband. It is further seen that the petitioner, on coming to know about the surcharge proceedings so initiated, pleading that her husband has no title to the subject property and she only has the title to the same, laid a claim application under the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act and it is seen that the same had come to be rejected subsequently and thereafter, it is found that the petitioner has also laid a suit in O.S.No.168 of 2009, before the District Munsif Court, Vedasendur, challenging the surcharge proceedings initiated against her husband and the property concerned. Despite the reasons put forth by the respondents that the suit would not lie before the said Court as such, the petitioner had not taken proper steps with reference to the same and thereafter, merely five years after the institution of the suit, she had chosen to withdraw the suit as the remedy available to her is only to prefer an appeal under Section 152(3) of the Act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the delay had occurred and hence, to condone the said delay, she has come forward with the present application.
3. The said application was resisted by the respondents contending that the petitioner, being very well aware of the surcharge proceedings initiated against her husband and the property concerned, laid a false claim and thereby delayed the matter endlessly and conveniently, after the claim application has been rejected and after the withdrawal of the suit from the Court concerned and pleading ignorance about the surcharge proceedings, she has come forward with the present application and hence, the delay should not be condoned and the application is liable to be dismissed.
4. On a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, finding that the petitioner being very well aware about the surcharge proceedings initiated against her husband and the property concerned, laid a claim application and after the same had been rejected, knowing very well that suit would not lie, instituted a suit and despite the resistance put forth by the respondents that the suit is not maintainable has kept the suit pending for more than five years and subsequently, chose to withdraw the suit and hence, it is found that it is only, on account of the petitioner's tactics as above referred, the delay had occurred in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal and accordingly, the Court below had rejected the application preferred by the petitioner to condone the said delay.
5. It is found that the Court below had rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and finding that the petitioner having full knowledge about the surcharge proceedings initiated by the respondents against the her husband and the property concerned deliberately delayed the matter by one way or the other by instituting a suit in a different forum knowing very well that the said suit would not lie before the said forum and after a long delay, she had chosen to withdraw the said suit and has come forward with the civil miscellaneous appeal along with the delay condonation application. In such view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below.
6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
.