AROULA REYMOND Vs. AROULA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Fair and Decreetal order dated 29.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.1495 of 2016 in O.S.No.108 of 2010 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the appellants herein and the suit was instituted for declaration and partition. The suit was dismissed for nonprosecution. To restore the suit, an interlocutory application was filed in I.A.No.1495 of 2016. The trial Court dismissed the interlocutory application mainly on the ground that several opportunities were provided to the appellants/plaintiffs, who in turn, had not shown any interest in pursuing the suit and contrarily, they had prolonged the suit with some motive. The intention of the appellants/plaintiffs was considered by the trial Court for the purpose of dismissal of the interlocutory application. In this regard, paragraph No.9 of the judgment is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:

(3.) This Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant, who instituted a suit, is expected to pursue the matter vigilantly. In case of any genuine lapses or non-appearance, Courts are at liberty to take lenient view. However, if the intention of the party is established that the plaintiffs are not interested in pursuing the matter or adopted a delay tactics in order to prolong the matter, then the Courts cannot show any leniency by restoring the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Such prolongation can never be appreciated but to be deprecated. Undoubtedly, all the suits are to be decided on merits. Parties are expected to co-operate for the earlier disposal of the suits.