SUDALAIMUTHU AND ALAGAMMAL Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 6.4.2009, made in I.A.No.19 of 2007, in O.S.No.16 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

(2.) By an order, dated 6.4.2009, the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, had allowed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.19 of 2007, filed by the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.16 of 2001. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.16 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, praying for a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to consequently, direct the defendants in the said suit, the petitioners herein, to hand over vacant possession of the said property. The said suit had been dismissed for default, on 2.7.2002, due to the non-appearance of the counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff in the suit, who is the respondent in the present civil revision petition, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.19 of 2007, for the restoration of the suit, which had been dismissed for default, on 2.7.2002. Though, the petition had been filed by the counsel for the plaintiff, the advocate clerk attached to the office of the counsel for the plaintiff had filed the affidavit stating that the suit had been posted for trial on 2.7.2002. However, he had wrongly noted the date of hearing due to oversight. Therefore, the counsel for the plaintiff had not appeared before the concerned Court on the date of the hearing of the suit, due to which the suit had been dismissed for default. Thereafter, the Principal District Munsif Court had condoned the delay of two days in filing the said application and had allowed the interlocutory application, by an order, dated 6.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said order the defendants in the suit had filed the present civil revision petition, before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the advocate clerk, attached to the office of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, cannot file an affidavit in the interlocutory application for the restoration of the suit, which had been issued for default, on 2.7.2002. Therefore, the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchendur, dated 6.4.2009, is invalid in the eye of law.