Order passed in Application under Section 5 of Act is not appealable Order, but is revisable Order

Citation

2020 (6) CTC 843 (Mad)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

R. Subramanian, J.

CR.P.(PD) No.438 of 2018 & C.M.P. No.2315 of 2018.

September 14, 2020

Ramachandran; Krishnakumar; Bhaskaran [minors 2 & 3 Are Rep. by Natural Guardian and Their Mother Latha]

Vs.

Balakrishnan and others 

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5- Constitution of India, Article 227 - Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed to condone delay of 1216 days in seeking to set aside ex parte Decree Trial Court treated same as Application under Order 9, Rule 13 and dismissed Application as delay not properly explained Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against said Order also dismissed - Revision against Held, Order passed in Application under Section 5 of Act is not appealable Order, but is revisable Order Civil Miscellaneous Appeal not maintainable against Order under Section 5 of Umitation Act Maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit applicable, as mistake made by Court and not by Petitioners Exercising powers under Article 227, Revision filed against CMA treated as Revision preferred against Order of Trial Court in Section 5-Application and disposed of.

Dandenon of law that an Order missed in Sections Application is not an appealinte Order but a revitabile Order. Therefore, the very Appeal before the leamed Principal Distna Jadge was not maintainable