BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.699 of 2009 1. Shenbagavalli 2. Chandra 3. Rajavel 4. Kumar Petitioners Vs The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare, Kumbakonam Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set side the heavy cost imposed on the petitioners in the order passed in IA.No.109 of 2007 in LA.AS.No.2/1998 dated 20.1.2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and allow the civil revision petition. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.R.Subrmanian ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, AGP :ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed by
the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, KUmbakonam In IA.No.109/2007 in
LA.AS.No.2/1998 dated 20.1.2009.
2. The respondent has passed an award in favour of deceased
Govindasamy under the land acquisition proceedings and since the award amount
was very low, the deceased Govindasamy had preferred an appeal in
LA.AS.No.2/1998 before the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. During the pendency
of the appeal, the said Govindasamy had died on 19.2.2002. The petitioners, who
are the legal heirs of the deceased Govindasamy, have filed an application in
IA.No.109/2007 to bring them as legal representatives of the deceased
Govindasamy on record with a petition to condone the delay of 1708 days in
filing the said application.
3. Though the learned Judge allowed the application on condition
that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs, failing which
the petition would be dismissed, the petitioners have challenged the said order
on the ground that the award of cost imposed by the learned Judge is on the
higher side considering the extent of land acquired by the respondent.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the award passed by the respondent being lower, considering the extent of land
acquired by the respondent, imposing a heavy cost of Rs.5000/- on the
petitioners would cause irreparable hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, he
would contend that the same has to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for
the respondent has submitted that there is no satisfactory cause shown by the
petitioners to condone the delay of 1708 days, which is inordinate. Therefore,
the cost imposed by the learned Judge is reasonable and the same is to be
uphold.
6. The petitioners are the wife, daughter and two sons of the
deceased Govindasamy. The third petitioner has sworn to an affidavit before the
court below, stating that he had been out of station in regard of his employment
and therefore, he could not meet his lawyer and inform about the demise of his
father and after his return, he contacted his lawyer and informed about the
demise of his father and also informed him that the legal heirs ought to have
been impleaded within 90 days from the date of death of his father. Only
thereafter, he has filed the petition to condone the delay of 1708 days in
filing the application to bring the legal representatives on record. According
to him, it is neither wilful nor wanton, but he is not aware of the procedure
that the petition should be filed within 90 days from the date of- demise of his
father. Though the learned Judge was not satisfied with the reasons shown by
the petitioners, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioners to contest
the appeal, he has allowed the petition and awarded heavy cost of Rs.5000/-.
7. Though the number of sufficient cause is a condition precedent
for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the court to condone
the delay, but what accounts is not the length of the delay, but the sufficiency
of the causes shown. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by
hard and fast rules.
8. In this case, the third petitioner has averred that he was away
due to his employment and as soon as he returned back, he had come to know
through his lawyer that the petition to bring on record the legal
representatives of the deceased Govindasamy on record ought to have been filed
and the reasons assigned by him does not appear to be unreasonable. Taking into
consideration of the facts and
circumstances and also the hardship that is likely to be caused to the
petitioners, I am of the view that the condition imposed by the learned Judge is
onerous and therefore, the same has to be modified.
9. In the result, the condition imposed by the learned Subordinate
Judge is modified to the effect that the petitioners shall pay a cost of
Rs.2000/- instead of Rs.5000/- and the same shall be paid within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This civil revision
petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Srcm
To:
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam