LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-396

A GOVINDARAJAN Vs. V ALAGIRISAMY NAICKER

Decided On January 31, 2011
A Govindarajan Appellant
V/S
V Alagirisamy Naicker Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant/ Plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 15.09.2003 passed in I.A.No.417 of 2001 in A.S.No.(Un -numbered) on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai.

(2.) The first appellate authority/learned Sub Judge, Aruppukkottai, while passing orders in I.A.No.417 of 2001 in Unnumbered A.S. on 15.09.2003, has among other things observed that 'in I.A.No.417 of 2001, the delay of 788 days has occurred and that there are contradictions in regard to the reason assigned in the affidavit in I.A.No.417 of 2001 filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff and that of the evidence adduced before the Court and in the light of these contradictions, it is evident that all the reasons assigned in the affidavit in I.A.No.417 of 2001 have not been proved and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.'

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner/petitioner/ appellant/plaintiff submits that the first appellate authority namely the learned Sub Judge, Aruppukkottai, has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and in fact, the oral evidence given by the revision petitioner/plaintiff suggests that the revision petitioner has not been in station and has been preoccupied with his business and has been travelling a lot. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first appellate authority/learned Sub Judge has been wrongly carried away by the mention of various places of visit in the evidence of the petitioner, but significantly has failed to appreciate to correlate the evidence which will show that the petitioner has not been rooted in one place and has been moving around in connection with this business.