Kuppusamy Naicker vs Lakshmana Gounder and Another

Ratnam, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, dismissing LA. 614 of

1987 filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. 1153 of 1983 on the

file of the District Munsif Court, Villupuram. The said suit was disposed of on 12-10-1984, by the District Munsif and the suit was decreed. The

appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. 1153 of 1983 had been filed before the Sub-Court, Villupuram. Since there was some delay in the

filing of the appeal, the petitioner filed LA: 614 of 1987 for the condonation of the delay. That application, however, came up before the

Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, who was none other than the very District Munsif, Villupuram, who disposed of the suit. The learned Subordinate

Judge, dismissed the application, the correctness of which is questioned in this civil revision petition.

From the facts set out above, it is clearly seen that the trial as well as the appellate Courts had been presided over by the same officer. Even

with reference to an interlocutory application in an appeal arising out of a suit disposed of by a particular Officer, the same Officer, in the capacity

of the appellate Court, cannot, taking into account the judicial probity and propriety and fairness, deal with the same. The learned Subordinate

Judge seems to have been oblivious of this. That the Presiding Officer of the appellate Court had been unaware of the fact that the application for

the condonation of the delay arose in the intended appeal against the judgment and decree in a suit dealt with by the same Officer as a trial Court,

is proof positive that there was a total lack of application of mind by the Presiding Officer of the appellate Court to the proceedings before it. It is

highly regrettable that the Presiding Officer of the Sub-Court had proceeded to dispose of the matter overlooking that the very interlocutory

proceeding dealt with had arisen out of a main proceeding, which had been dealt with by the same Officer at the stage of suit. In other words, the

Presiding Officer of the lower appellate Court, by dealing with and dismissing the interlocutory proceeding, had seen to it, that finality was secured

to the adjudication made in the suit by the same Officer. The course so adopted is not only opposed to all known and well accepted and

established norms and canons of judicial procedure, but is bound to undermine the confidence reposed by the litigants in the justice delivery system

generally and Courts of Appeal in particular. Consequently, the order passed in LA. No. 614 of 1987 cannot be upheld. The civil revision petition

is allowed, and LA. 614 of 1987 will stand remitted to the Court below now presided over by a different officer, for fresh disposal in accordance

with law. There will be, however, no order as to costs.