A PERIYASAMY Vs. A KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 5.1.2009, made in I.A.No.181 of 2008, in the unnumbered suit, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.

(2.) The petitioner herein had filed the suit on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, to recover the amount of Rs.85,000/-, along with the interest thereon, based on a promissory note. From the records available before this Court it is seen that the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the unnumbered suit, had filed the said suit, on 13.7.2006, without paying the required Court fee and without getting the Court seel affixed. Therefore, it had been returned for its proper representation. Thereafter, it had been represented, only on 12.6.2008. Thus, there has been a delay of nearly 655 days in the representation of the suit. The petitioner had stated that the delay had been caused due to the fact that he could not contact his counsel, as he had been ill, due to jaundice. It has been further stated that the petitioner could not produce sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that he was unwell, due to jaundice, as he had been getting the necessary treatment, locally, from various persons, who are not qualified medical practitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respodent had submitted that the averments made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that no documentary evidence had been produced to substantiate his claims, with regard to his illness. Futher, the suit filed by the petitioner, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, said to be based on a promissory note, is barred by limitation.