SEETHAI AMMAL Vs. V C VIKUNDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL heirs of defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam are the revision petitioners herein, Suit filed by plaintiffs was one for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. In the plaint it is alleged that originally defendant was tenant who agreed to pay Rs. 625 per month as rent and defendant defaulted in paying the same and he is liable to be evicted. Notice was issued terminating tenancy.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by deceased defendant he admitted that he has taken only vacant site and put up construction 35 years prior to the

(3.) ONE of the main contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that the application is filed for extension of time and the question whether petitioners are entitled to have the time extended or not is not properly considered by court below. According to learned counsel for petitioners, lower court only held that since cost is not paid in time application was dismissed. Said approach of lower court is criticised by learned counsel for petitioners.