VIJAYAMMA Vs. RADHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 119/96 of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally for a declaration of easement by prescription and for injunction against respondents 1 to 3. The suit was included in the special list for trial. The plaintiff filed I.A.1019/97toremovethecasefromthelist. That was dismissed and the suit was also dismissed. Then the petitioner filed I. A. 1143/97 to restore the suit to file. On 17.2.1988 when the case was called on for hearing the petitioner was absent. Hence, LA. was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed another I.A.343/98 to review the order dismissing the restoration application. That was allowed on condition to pay costs of Rs.250/-. That was paid on 25.2.1999 and the restoration application was restored to file. Later, the restoration application was posted for hearing and the same was allowed on condition to pay to pay Rs. 1,000/- on or before 17.3.1999. That amount was not paid before 17.3.1999. Hence, that petition to restore the suit was again dismissed. The said amount was later deposited on 30.7.1999, i.e. after 13 days. On 5.8.1999 the petitioner filed a fresh vakalath along with LA. .1432/99 to condone the delay in depositing the cost. But, the court below dismissed the petition to condone the delay also. Hence, this revision.

(2.) On going through the order, I find that there is laches on the part of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the petitioner is undergoing treatment. When a conditional order is passed, it has to be complied with strictly, failing which the condition will take effect and the consequential order cannot be reviewed or modified. On going through the diary of the case, I find that the plaintiff was abusing the process of the court. Parties should be vigilant in prosecuting the suit. The case being one of the year 1996 the court wanted to dispose of the same. The intention of the plaintiff to harass the defendant is very clear from the various petitions filed by the plaintiff one after another. The machinery for imparting justice should not be misused by the parties to harass the opposite parties.