Murugesan Vs. Kandhayee and Others

Murugesan vs Kandhayee and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 02, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/934062

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/934062
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G. Rajasuria
Decided On: Aug 02, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P. NPD. NO. 2649 OF 2012 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Limitation Act - Section 5 -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugesan

Advocate For the Petitioner: B. Jaya, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Guruprasad, Advocate.

Respondent

Kandhayee and Others

Excerpt

limitation act - section 5 - .....of 1997.) order 1. animadverting upon the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the i additional subordinate judge, erode, in m.c.o.p.no.199 of 1997, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. the epitome and the long and short of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the the mcop no.199 of 1997 seeking compensation concerning the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. (ii) the revision petitioner herein-murugesan was arrayed as the driver of the offending vehicle and r3 herein-somasundaram was the owner of the vehicle. (iii) ex-parte award was passed. (iv) thereafter, the revision petitioner herein-murugesan filed the application i.a.no.518 of 2009 to get the delay of 4019 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex-parte award set aside. (v) the said application was dismissed for default. 3. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, murugesan straight away filed this revision with the delay of 99 days. the said delay alone was condoned by this court. however, when the revision has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for r1 and r2 herein would appropriately and appositely, legally and correctly, and that too convincingly submit that instead of filing an application to get the i.a.no.518 of 2009 restored, the revision petitioner has simply filed this revision, touching upon the merits of the matter and that too, narrating about the alleged part payments earlier paid etc. 4. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would try to place reliance on the grounds of revision. 5. i would like to point out that when the revision petitioner herein allowed his application i.a.no.518 of 2009, filed under section 5 of the limitation act, to get the enormous delay of 4,019 days condoned, dismissed for default, there is no question of focussing the revision by invoking section 115 of c.p.c. would arise. this revision is totally a misconceived one. hence,.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 1997.)

ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 1997, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

(i) Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the the MCOP No.199 of 1997 seeking compensation concerning the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident.

(ii) The revision petitioner herein-Murugesan was arrayed as the driver of the offending vehicle and R3 herein-Somasundaram was the owner of the vehicle.

(iii) Ex-parte award was passed.

(iv) Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein-Murugesan filed the application I.A.No.518 of 2009 to get the delay of 4019 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex-parte award set aside.

(v) The said application was dismissed for default.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, Murugesan straight away filed this revision with the delay of 99 days. The said delay alone was condoned by this Court. However, when the revision has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for R1 and R2 herein would appropriately and appositely, legally and correctly, and that too convincingly submit that instead of filing an application to get the I.A.No.518 of 2009 restored, the revision petitioner has simply filed this revision, touching upon the merits of the matter and that too, narrating about the alleged part payments earlier paid etc.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would try to place reliance on the grounds of revision.

5. I would like to point out that when the revision petitioner herein allowed his application I.A.No.518 of 2009, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to get the enormous delay of 4,019 days condoned, dismissed for default, there is no question of focussing the revision by invoking Section 115 of C.P.C. would arise. This revision is totally a misconceived one. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Murugesan vs Kandhayee and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G. Rajasuria

Land Acquisition