A P KRISHNAVENIAMMAL Vs. PAPPAIAH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.54 of 2008 in A.S.No.29 of 2000 dated 30.01.2009 by the lower Court, an application to re-admit the appeal, dismissed for default.

(2.) HEARD Mr.Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.V.K.Ezhilmani, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Y.N.Venkatraj, learned counsel for the respondent. Records were called for from the lower Court and the same has been received and perused.

(3.) I have paid much consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. The petitioners were the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent, a suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court, after a stiff contest and the petitioners have preferred an appeal against the said decree in A.S.No.29 of 2000, before the lower Court. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 14.08.2001 for want of prosecution and the petitioners have filed an application to re-admit the appeal on 07.09.2001 within the time limit as allowed by law. However, the said application was not numbered by the Court for want of records already consigned by the said Court to the District Court, for taking the applications on file. The lower Court had come to a conclusion that the delay in numbering the application filed in the year 2008 in an application filed in the year 2001 was only due to the dilatory tactics of the petitioners for not numbering the said application. On that basis, the lower Court had imputed mala-fide on the part of the petitioners and dismissed the application. For that we have to see the docket order passed by the lower Court prior to the numbering of the said application.