Nallaiah Vs. Panneer Selvan

Nallaiah vs Panneer Selvan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 02, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/830024

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/830024
Court: Chennai High Court
Decided On: Dec 02, 1997
Subject: Limitation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 141; [A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kaliffulla &V. Ramasubramanian, JJ] Reference to Larger Bench - Precedent - Full Bench decision Held, It is binding on the Division Bench. Only if the Full Bench comes to conclusion that earlier Full Bench decision is incorrect, there is scope fo...

Key legal issue: Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nallaiah

Respondent

Panneer Selvan

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)3MLJ566

Excerpt

- constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. .....in the aforesaid circumstances the lower court allowed the petition for condoning the delay, after having agreed about the contention of the petitioner the lower court has directed to deposit rs. 7,500 into court. the ex parte decree is for rs. 15,000.1 do not find any justification for ordering the deposit of half of the amount.2. only in a case where there is a doubt about the reasons given by the petitioner for condoning the delay or the reasons appeared to be unacceptable or unnatural, conditions should be imposed. but in a case where the reasons appeared to be genuine and they have been accepted there is no justification for imposing a condition to deposit 50% of the claim amount, which in my view is not only unjustified, but also prevents the petitioner to have a fair trial of the case. therefore the c.r.p. is allowed. the order of the lower court is set aside with reference to the direction to pay a sum of rs. 7,500. in other respects the order will stand. the suit is of the year 1993. therefore the iii additional district munsif, tiruchirapalli on whose file the suit is pending is directed to take up the same and dispose of it within a period of 6 months from today. in view of the disposal of the c.r.p. no order is necessary in c.m.ps. 17794 and 16562 of 1996.3. the petitioner's counsel has agreed to co-operate with the district munsif for the early disposal.4. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.

1. The C.R.P. is against the order allowing the petition for condoning the delay of 394 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The reason stated in the affidavit in support of the petition is that there was a communal clash in the village with reference to the performing of the functions in the temple. Two communities clashed with each other and as a result law and order problem became serious and many families left the village. The petitioner states that he left the village and resided in another village Huppur along with his relative one Karuppaiah. He returned only after the normalcy was restored. As he was away from the village the postcard sent by the Advocate was not received. In the counter excepting the general denial, there is no specific denial with reference to the allegations contained in the affidavit. Only in the aforesaid circumstances the lower court allowed the petition for condoning the delay, After having agreed about the contention of the petitioner the lower court has directed to deposit Rs. 7,500 into court. The ex parte decree is for Rs. 15,000.1 do not find any justification for ordering the deposit of half of the amount.

2. Only in a case where there is a doubt about the reasons given by the petitioner for condoning the delay or the reasons appeared to be unacceptable or unnatural, conditions should be imposed. But in a case where the reasons appeared to be genuine and they have been accepted there is no justification for imposing a condition to deposit 50% of the claim amount, which in my view is not only unjustified, but also prevents the petitioner to have a fair trial of the case. Therefore the C.R.P. is allowed. The order of the lower court is set aside with reference to the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500. In other respects the order will stand. The suit is of the year 1993. Therefore the III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli on whose file the suit is pending is directed to take up the same and dispose of it within a period of 6 months from today. In view of the disposal of the C.R.P. no order is necessary in C.M.Ps. 17794 and 16562 of 1996.

3. The petitioner's counsel has agreed to co-operate with the District Munsif for the early disposal.

4. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1997 Same Parties Nallaiah vs Panneer Selvan Same Subject Limitation

Limitation