AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioners/Respondents 3 to 6 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 18/2/2004 in
I.A. No. 173 of 2003 in an unnumbered Appeal No. Nil/2004 passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam.
The Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners/Appellants have filed I.A. No. 173 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam
u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay of 765 days in preferring the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated
31/7/2001 in O.S. No. 170 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
The learned Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam while passing orders in I.A. No. 173 of 2003 in an unnumbered Appeal No. Nil/2004 on 18/2/2004 as
among other things observed that ""the issues pertaining to Pension Rules will have to be determined only if an appeal is examined and a decision
taken thereon and resultantly allowed I.A. No. 173 of 2003 by directing the Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the
Petitioners herein/2 to 6 Respondents within a period of two weeks i.e., before 6/3/2004 failing which it directed the petition to be dismissed and
ordered for posting of the matter on 7/3/2004.
Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam in an unnumbered Appeal No. Nil/2004, the
revision Petitioners as aggrieved persons have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, while allowing I.A. No. 173 of 2003 on
18/2/2004 by passing a conditional order has not appreciated of the fact that the delay of 768 days in question has occurred due to extraordinary
reason which cannot be condoned for the reasons assigned in the affidavit. Further, there is no cause of action for the Respondents 1 and 2 to
prefer an appeal as against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 170 of 1995 dated 31/7/2008.
Also, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the learned Sub-Judge has allowed I.A. No. 173 of 2003 by
erroneously taking into consideration the pension payable and in any event, imposing of costs of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned Sub-Judge, is an illegal
one besides the same being opposed to law.
In the affidavit in I.A. No. 173 of 2003 filed before the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, the second revision Petitioner as among
other things mentioned that there is a delay of 768 days in preferring the appeal and the said delay has been caused due to administrative process
and not on their negligence. Also, it is mentioned that the husband of the deceased person is only eligible to derive the benefit. Moreover, as per
Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the proper forum is only the State Administrative Tribunal.
The Revision Petitioners in I.A. No. 173 of 2003 at paragraph 4 have stated that the opinion from the Special Government Pleader, Chennai is
that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
In the counter filed by the third Respondent/first Respondent, it is among other things mentioned that the fourth Respondent/the husband of the
deceased is entitled to the final balances in G.P.F account of the subscriber and that the Petitioners in execution petition are not entitled to receive
the same, etc.
In the counter filed by the third revision Petitioner/fifth Respondent and adopted by 7 the revision Petitioner/second revision Petitioner and
fourth revision Petitioner, it is stated that only to escape from making payment in the execution petition, the present petition has been filed and
absolutely there is no reason or justification to stay the execution petition and also to show their bonafides, the first and second
Respondents/Petitioners may be directed to deposit in the Court as the condition precedent for condonation of delay. On going through the order
passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam in an unnumbered Appeal No. Nil/2004, it is clear that the said Court has exercised its
judicial discretion in directing the R1,R2/Petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs in allowing I.A. No. 173 of 2003 to the Respondents 2 to
6 therein within a period of two weeks before 6/3/2004.
The contention of the learned Counsel 8 for the revision Petitioners is that the Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners in I.A. No. 173/2003 has
attributed the reason for the delay of 768 days in preferring the appeal only due to some administrative process and indeed, the Respondents 1 and
2/Petitioners have not expatiated the same in a quantitative or in a qualitative fashion. To put it differently, the averment in I.A. No. 173 of 2003
that ""the said delay was caused due to some administrative process and not our negligence is a cryptic one bereft of any detail in this regard"".
It would have been prudent on the part of R.1,2/Petitioners to have elaborated the reasons for the delay in the counter to I.A. No. 173 of 2003 in
paragraph 5. However, the absence of elaboration in this regard is not fatal to I.A. No. 173 of 2003.
It is to be noted that when a Court of law while dealing with Section 5 application will have to adopt a pragmatic common sense approach,
however, it shall not adopt a pedantic approach. By and large a litigant/party does not stand to benefit by preferring an appeal belatedly. The
maximum thing that can happen, if an application for condonation of delay is allowed by a Court of law is that the concerned party will have an
opportunity to take part in the main proceeding and is because being decided on merits and of course, after providing due opportunities to either
side. Also that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are fitted against each other, then deliverance of substantial justice will have to
be preferred rather than the other course. It is to be born in mind that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on
technical grounds but it is capable of removing so and is expected to do so. As far as the present case is concerned, the learned Principal Sub-
Judge, Kumbakonam, while passing the conditional order in I.A. No. 173 of 2003 in an unnumbered Appeal No. Nil/2004 dated 18/2/2004 has
exercised its discretion and when going through the said order, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the said order does not suffer from
any material irregularity or patent illegality warranting any interference in the hands of this Court sitting in revision. At this stage, it is pertinent for
this Court to make a significant mention that in the order in I.A. No. 173 of 2003 dated 18/2/2004, the learned Principal Sub-Judge,
Kumbakonam has also observed that the legal issues involved in the subject matter of the case can be determined only if the appeal is taken up for
consideration etc.
Therefore, looking at from any angle, the order of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumakonam in I.A. No. 173 of 2003 in an unnumbered
Appeal No. Nil/2004 dated 18/2/2004 is found to be a valid and legal one. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits.
In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the order passed in an unnumbered
Appeal No. Nil/2004 passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam dated 18/2/2004 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons
assigned in this revision. Liberty is given to the parties to raise all factual and legal pleas before the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam at
the time of final hearing of the main Appeal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.