VIJAYAMMA Vs. NANDAKUMARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara, which was one filed against the respondents-defendants for specific performance on the strength of an alleged oral agreement between the plaintiff and 1st defendant-1st respondent herein. That suit was dismissed for default on 20/8/2014. The appellant filed I.A.No.1166 of 2014, an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to restore that suit. That application was accompanied by I.A.No.1162 of 2014, invoking the provisions under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking an order to condone the delay of three days. The 1st defendant filed an objection opposing the relief sought for. After considering the rival contentions, the court below, by the order dtd. 2/9/2015, dismissed I.A.No.1166 of 2014 for the reasons stated therein. Based on the said order, I.A.No.1162 of 2014 was also dismissed on the very same day. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dtd. 2/9/2015 in I.A.No.1166 of 2014 and I.A.No.1162 of 2014, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Order XLIII, Rule 1(c) of the Code. This appeal was filed along with C.M.Appl.No.517 of 2016 (C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2016) for condonation of delay of 286 days, which has already been allowed by a separate order, on condition that the 1st defendant can be adequately compensated by awarding a nominal amount as costs in this appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-1st defendant. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted on the orders dtd. 2/9/2015 of the Sub Court in I.A.No.1162 of 2014 and I.A.No.1166 of 2014 in O.S.No.46 of 2012.