SARPUDEEN Vs. PITCHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.02.2003 in I.A.No.90 of 2002 in O.S.No.7 of 1998 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur.

(2.) THE trial Court namely, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, while passing orders in I.A.No.90 of 2002 in O.S.No.7 of 1998, has among other things observed that the respondents/petitioners/ defendants will have to pay a sum of Rs.1,200/- (Rupees One Thousand and Two Hundred only) to the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff as costs on or before 27.02.2003, failing which the petition will stand dismissed and passed the conditional order by allowing the said application with costs.

(3.) THE plea of the revision petitioner is that no proper reasons have been furnished by the defendants in the affidavit in I.A.No.90 of 2002 in O.S.No.7 of 1998 as to whether the first defendant had jaundice attack and whether he had treatment etc., and indeed, the trial Court should have dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further, the trial Court has lost sight of an important fact that the respondents/ petitioners/defendants only with a view to drag on the proceedings and delay the due process of law has filed I.A.No.90 of 2002 in O.S.No.7 of 1998 to condone the delay of 801 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree only on 17.01.2002 and therefore, he prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.