Skip to content


Rajagopal Pillai Vs. Somasundaram Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1964)1MLJ238
AppellantRajagopal Pillai
RespondentSomasundaram Pillai
Cases ReferredNaina v. Trustee of Kailasanathan Temple
Excerpt:
- .....14 days, that is, on the 24th december, 1960, he filed the present application, out of which this civil revision petition arises, for excusing the delay in deposition the amount as directed by the court. the revenue court passed an order stating that it has no power to review its own order and dismissed that application. it is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. though the petitioner is entitled to some sympathy, the law is against him recently veerasami, j., has held in naina v. trustee of kailasanathan temple : (1963)1mlj180 that when a time is fixed for the payment of money, the court has no jurisdication to extend the time. viewed in the light of that principle, the revenue court was right in dismissing the application filed by the tenant.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Venkatadri, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of M.P. No. 7 of 1961 in Petition No. 1477 of 1960 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. The petitioner herein is the tenant, and he is the father of the Respondent herein who originally filed P. No. 1477 of 1960 against his father, the tenant, for his eviction, on the ground that there were arrears of rent. There was partition between the father and his sons and the suit property fell to the share of the respondent and the father, that is, the petitioner herein took it on lease but did not pay the rent due, and hence the son filed the application for eviction. In that eviction petition, the tenant was asked to deposit Rs. 91-16 into Court on or before 10th December, 1960, failing which he would stand evicted from the suit land. According to the case of the petitioner herein, it seems he went to Court on 10oth December, 1960 with the money but as the Court was not sitting that day, he returned without depositing the money into Court ro paying it to his son, the respondent herein. After 14 days, that is, on the 24th December, 1960, he filed the present application, out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises, for excusing the delay in deposition the amount as directed by the Court. The Revenue Court passed an order stating that it has no power to review its own order and dismissed that application. It is against this order that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. Though the petitioner is entitled to some sympathy, the law is against him Recently Veerasami, J., has held in Naina v. Trustee of Kailasanathan Temple : (1963)1MLJ180 that when a time is fixed for the payment of money, the Court has no jurisdication to extend the time. Viewed in the light of that principle, the Revenue Court was right in dismissing the application filed by the tenant petitioner for excusing the delay in depositing the money into Court.

3. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No. costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //