ZULAIKA BI Vs. MOHANAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 31.08.2000 in C.M.P.No.970 of 1996 passed by the Learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the petition praying to restore C.M.P.No.1563 of 1995 dismissed for default dated 19.06.1996 filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 of CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

(2.) THE Learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai while passing orders in C.M.P.No.970 of 1996 dated 31.08.2000 has inter alia opined 'that the reasons mentioned in the petition to restore C.M.P.No.1563 of 1995 to file are an unacceptable one for the reason, earlier C.M.P.No.242 of 1992 has been dismissed, which fact has been known to the petitioner and again in C.M.P.No.1563 of 1995 which has been filed to restore C.M.P.No.242 of 1992, the petitioner has not appeared properly and also not taken proper steps and has adopted an indifferent attitude and therefore, the same has been dismissed on 19.06.1996 and therefore, the reasons ascribed in the petition to restore C.M.P.No.1563 of 1995 are not proper and consequently, dismissed the petition without costs.'

(3.) IN the counter filed by the 1st respondent (before the trial Court), it is among other things mentioned that it is strange that the 3rd respondent who is not a party to the proceedings viz., suit, first appeal and the application to permit the petitioner to file first appeal either in her own capacity or as legal heir of the deceased respondent Akbar Basha, is impleaded as party to the above application and moreover, the reasons mentioned in the petition for restoration are not acceptable and tenable and added further, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the petitioner has not attended the Court on that date and what has been the alternate arrangement made by her counsel to represent the matter and the allegations are mere lame excuses thought of and made for the occasion and indeed, the petitioner is in the habit of coming out with petition after petition and allow them to go for default and for projecting an application to restore the same and she is guilty of latches and the very fact that an appeal which has been returned for compliance, has been represented after delay of 84 days will go to show the attitude of the petitioner and there is no truth or bonafide in the contentions of the petitioner and the petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same may be dismissed with costs.