Prayer in CRP.SR(MD)No.38076 of 2015 : Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal passed in E.A.No.228/14 in E.P.No.70/08 in O.S.No.235/1999 dated 01.04.2015 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
Prayer in CMP(MD)No.10045 of 2016 : Petition filed under Order IV Rule 9(4) of A.S. Rules, to condone the delay of 503 days in re-presenting the revision petition against the order passed in E.A.No.228/14 in E.P.No.70/08 in O.S.No.235/1999 dated 01.04.2015.
CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.2037 and 2038 of 2015 :-
1)S.Athimuthu
2)S.Pandaram
3)P.Sankara Pillai
4)Annapandi
5)K.Thirupathi
6)L.Ramachandran
7)K.Hari
8)D.Palavesamuthu
9)S.Velu
10)N.Muthuvel
11)M.Balammal
12)C.Murugan
13)C.Natarajan
14)C.Ganesan
15)S.Easwaram
16)A.Panneer
17)A.Perumal
18)O.Velsamy
19)T.Singaravel
20)M.Panid
21)S.Murugesan
22)E.Subramanian
23)V.Thangapandi
24)L.Kasi
25)M.Packiamani
26)B.Veliah
27)R.Kandasami
28)R.Dinakaran
29)C.Murugesan
30)P.Sornalingam
31)Y.Thavasi
32)N.Deva Irakkam
33)S.Muthukutty
34)P.Palpandi
35)R.Thavasi
36)R.Chelliah
37)L.Antony
38)R.Selvaraj
39)L.Mohan
40)B.Kasi
41)Y.Duraipandi
42)S.Mani
43)S.Thangavel
44)R.Nambi Thevar
45)S.Sudalaiyandi Asari
46)S.Abraham ... Petitioners vs.
1)Kalakkad Pannai Podu Nidhi Trust, through its Trustee S.P.Mani, S/o.Pannai Subramania Iyar, 25, Peria Street, Kalakad, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2)L.Padmanabhan
3)P.Rama Narayana Iyer
4)L.Hariharan
5)K.S.Sundara Krishnan
6)P.S.Sathia Vagheeswara Iyer
7)S.Seshachala Sethurayar
8)P.Baliah
9)R.Thirumalai
10)S.Koluviah
11)K.Sethuraman
12)V.Balakrishnan
13)S.Paulraj
14)S.Jeyapaul
15)K.Lakshmana Iyya
16)V.Thangapandi
17)V.Mohan
18)L.Velsamy Nadar
19)S.Pandi
20)R.Shanmugam
21)S.Thangappan
22)L.Muthiah
23)S.Jeyaraman
24)R.Thangappan
25)L.Chelliah
26)V.Ganapathy
27)A.Subbiah
28)P.Subbiah
29)P.Gunasekaran
30)P.Velsamy
31)A.S.A.Siva Sankaran
32)P.Balakrishnan
33)R.THeniah
34)P.Madasamy
35)C.Thangiah
36)P.Dekshinamurthy Nadar
37)A.Subramanian
38)P.Velu
39)S.Chelliah
40)C.Perumal
41)M.Singaravel
42)S.Mookken
43)P.Subbiah
44)P.Kasamadi
45)P.Shanmugavel
46)P.Perumal
47)S.Chelliah
48)S.Chelliah
49)M.Singaravel
50)S.Chelliah
51)P.Velu
52)S.Mookan
53)S.Sehthu
54)S.Murugesan
55)M.Mookan
56)A.Subramanian
57)S.Muthusamy
58)C.Ramachandran
59)P.Cehllappa
60)R.Arumugam
61)V.Puthiyavan
62)A.Nambi
63)D.Murugan
64)M.Pandi
65)E.Arumugam
66)Karuppiah
67)S.Crus Nadar
68)T.Mayil
69)S.Sudalaimuthu
70)P.Ponnuthai
71)A.Thoppiah
72)M.Perumal Nadar
73)S.Sudalaimuthu
74)S.Chelliah
75)S.Easwaran
76)E.Arumugam
77)V.Ramaiah Nadar
78)E.Subramanian
79)R.Asaivarnam
80)M.Lakshmanaperumal
81)R.Kasilingam
82)V.Muthiah
83)S.Namasivayam
84)S.Periyasami
85)T.Jeyabalan
86)S.Paulraj
87)P.Koilpitchai
88)A.Kalyani
89)R.Thovaramani Nadar
90)R.Lakshmanan
91)N.Pandara Nadar
92)L.Chelliah Nadar
93)M.Palvannan
94)A.Narayana Nadar
95)P.Ramakrishnan
96)S.Palavesam
97)G.Dharmakkan
98)V.Gopalakrishnan
99)S.Vaikundiah
100)A.Kalyani
101)S.Selvaraj
102)S.Uamayammal
103)S.Kasiappa
104)V.Jeyaraman
105)Esakkimuthu
106)P.Krishnayya
107)A.Pandaram
108)K.Thangiah
109)S.Balasundaram
110)P.Subbiah
111)V.Thomas
112)R.Vallinayagam
113)L.Thavasi
114)I.Jeyalakshmi
115)P.Chithirai
116)M.Lakshmana Perumal Nadar
117)S.Duraipandi
118)S.Ponsamy
119)S.Vellakkan
120)S.Pappa
121)B.Thulasi
122)P.Gopal
123)S.Duraipandi
124)R.Purushothaman
125)A.Natrajan
126)P.Baliah
127)B.Madasami
128)M.Lakshmana Pandi
129)M.Sornalingam
130)S.Subbiah Chettiar
131)N.Palanisethurayar
132)Shanmuga Mooppanar
133)R.Arasamuthu Nadar
134)P.Dinakaran
135)M.Sethurayan Nadar
136)P.Umayal Parvathy
137)P.Palpandi
138)T.Pandi
139)K.Panchy
140)R.Asaivaranam
141)R.Parthasarathy
142)A.Muthuammal
143)M.Balakrishnan
144)M.Balammal
145)S.Uikkattan
146)S.Arunachalathammal
147)S.Palvannan
148)Y.Lakshmana Pandi
149)M.Manthiramoorthy
150)S.Ponnusamy
151)S.Sudalaimadi
152)V.John Nadar
153)T.Mariappan
154)B.Danasekaran
155)K.Natarajan
156)P.Kalyani
157)P.Ponpandi
158)L.Chithirai
159)J.Raghavan
160)R.Rajadurai
161)P.Narayana Vadivu
162)P.Arunachalam
163)K.Ramaiah Nadar
164)P.Srikrishnan
165)E.Muthiah Thevar ... Respondents Petitions filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.Nos.135 & 136/15 in I.A.Nos.172 & 173/09 in Unnumbered A.S.No.---/09 dated 09-06-15 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.
!For Petitioners(In all cases) : Mr.H.Arumugam ^For R1(In all cases) : Mr.G.S.Senthilkumar :COMMON ORDER All the three revision petitions are filed by the defendants in O.S.No.235/99. The said suit was filed by the Kalakkad Pannai Podu Nidhi Trust, represented by its Trustees, against L.Padmanabhan and 209 others.
2.The suit is for recovery of possession and past and future mesne profits. On 17.08.2006, the suit was decreed. Pursuant to the decree, the plaintiffs filed Execution Petition No.70/08 in O.S.No.235/99.
3.In E.A.No.228/14, the judgment debtors contended that the decree passed in the suit is not an executable decree. They are not cultivating tenants under the decree holder and therefore, the decree is a nullity.
4.The said E.A.No.228/14 was dismissed by the Execution Court on 01.04.2015. Against the dismissal of the Execution Application, Athimuthu and 39 others have preferred a revision petition and the same was returned by the Registry, for rectifying certain defects and for re-presentation. While re-presenting the revision papers after curing the defects, 503 days delay has occurred. Hence, the revision petitioners have taken out the present application CMP(MD)No.10045 of 2016 in CRP.SR(MD)No.38076 of 2015, to condone the delay of 503 days in re-presentation.
5.Before filing E.A.No.228/14, the revision petitioners have filed appeal against the decree passed in O.S.No.235/99 dated 17.08.2006. Though the appeal was filed in time, the appeal papers were returned for compliance of certain defects. The revision petitioners re-presented the papers with the delay of 521 days, but without curing all the defects. Therefore, again, the appeal papers were returned and they re-presented it with the further delay of 159 days for the second time.
6.Both the applications to condone the delay of 521 days in I.A.No.172/09 and to condone the delay of 159 days in I.A.No.173/09 were taken up for hearing. The Trial Court directed the revision petitioners to file batta for the respondents. Since the revision petitioners failed to file batta to serve notice on the respondents in both their I.A.No.172/09 (condone delay of 521 days in re-presentation) and I.A.No.173/09 (condone delay of 151 days in re-presentation), the same were dismissed on 23.11.2010. After dismissal of their condone delay petitions, the revision petitioners took out applications in I.A.Nos.135 and 136 of 2015 to restore I.A.Nos.172 and 173 of 2009 with the delay of 976 days.
7.In short, the revision petitioners having lost the suit, filed appeal in time, but failed to re-present the appeal papers within the time, as a result, there was a delay of 521 days at the first instance and 159 days at the second instance. When the Court directed the revision petitioners to pay batta for service of notice to the respondents, the revision petitioners failed and therefore, both the Section 5 applications were dismissed for default on 23.11.2010. To restore the dismissed applications, there was 976 days delay. Those applications I.A.Nos.135 and 136 of 2015 were dismissed, against which, CRP.Nos.2037 and 2038 of 2015 have been filed.
8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners besides canvassing the case on merits, contended that the delay in re-presentation was due to the difficulty in numbering and prosecuting the litigation where there are numerous parties. Further, it was contended that for non payment of batta regarding some of the respondents, the Trial Court dismissed the Section 5 applications in toto, which is a grave error in jurisdiction and exercise of power vested with the Trial Court, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
9.The sum and substance of the revision petitions is that whether the revision petitioners were diligent in pursuing their case and whether there is sufficient cause shown by them for not prosecuting the case diligently.
10.The revision petitioners are all fighting against one respondent namely, Kalakkad Pannai Podu Nidhi Trust represented by its Trustees, which is the plaintiff in the suit. The reason for not re-presenting the case papers in time and for not taking steps to serve notice to the respondents, is not properly explained, except quoting a large number of respondents. This cannot be the reason at all, because, the respondents are all defendants in the suit and collecting addresses and paying batta to them is not a difficult task. Even if it is so, it is not necessary to delay the matter for nearly 7 years from the date of decree. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the revision petitioners are not really interested in conducting the case, but only protracting the proceedings.
11.The reason stated for delay in re-presentation is that the papers were mixed up with other bundles in the Advocate's office and therefore, only after intimation from his Clerk, the counsel came to know about the return of the case papers. Such a vague explanation cannot be accepted, because, after the return of papers for re-presentation in CRP.SR(MD)No.38076/15, there was proceedings in I.A.Nos.135 and 136 of 2015 to condone the delay of 976 days. Therefore, it is unbelievable that the revision petitioners were not aware of prosecuting their revision petitions before the High Court.
12.Since there is no justifiable cause provided by the revision petitioners to condone the delay in re-presentation, this Court holds that entertaining these revision petitions will create grave prejudice to the decree holder, who has obtained a decree and waiting for its execution. Law cannot come to rescue for a person who is not vigilant in pursuing his right. In this case, it is not a single person who has by inadvertently failed to follow the case. It is a group of persons pitted against a Trust. Failure to present the case papers in all Courts only indicates that the revision petitioners are not really interested in pursuing their case, but they want to protract. Court cannot come to aid for such persons who try to abuse the process of the Court with ulterior motive.
Hence, CRP.SR(MD)No.38076 of 2015, CMP(MD)No.10045 of 2016 and CRP(MD)Nos.2037 and 2038 of 2015 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Principal District Court, Tirunelveli..