ELLAPURAM PANCHAYAT UNION Vs. BHAVANIAMAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in S. No. 413 of 1972, District Munsif's Court, Tiruvellore. is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent herein for a declaration that a passage leading to the devastanam in PeriaDalam belongs to it and also for an injunction. That suit was resisted by the petitioner herein on several grounds which need not be noticed in detail for vurroses~ of the Present civil revision petition. Suffice it to. save that the learned District Munsif. Tiruvallur. on a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence. dismissed the suit instituted by the respondent on 30-71973 apply vieved by that. the respondent preferred an appeal. in A. S. No. 178 of 1973 to Sub-Court, Kancheepuram In order to contest the appeal. the Petitioner had engraved one Thiru C. M. Palaniraiakuniar as counsel. This appeal A. S. No. 178 of 1973 filed by the respondent herein before the Sub Court. Kancheepuram was later transferred to the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge. Chengalvattu. as per order dated 6-12-1977 in accordance with the proceedings of the District Judge. The appeal so transferred from Sub Court. Kancheevuram. to the Sub Court. ChenealDattu. was received be Sub Court. Chenvalpattu on 15-12-1977 and renumbered as A. S. No. 188 of 1977 on its file and posted for hearing on 16-1-1978. From 16-1-1978 it was adjourned to 15-2-1978 and on that day. Thiru D. K. Sampath. Advocate. Chengalpattu filed vakalat in the appeal on behalf of the respondent. and the appeal was adjourned to 27-2-1978 On 27-2-1978. the petitioner was stated to be absent and the appeal was directed to be Posted in the list for hearing on 17-41978. From 17-4-1979 the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 18-41978 and on 18-4-1978 the appeal was further adjourned to 24-4-1978 On 244-1978. the notes paper indicates 'both not ready' and the deal was thereafter adjourned dt 12-7-1978 From 12-7-1978. the appeal was adjourned to 15-71978. 20-7-1978, 25-7-1978. 27-7-1978 and there-after to 29-7-1978. On 297-1978. arguments were heard and judgment was reserved and on 4-8-1978. the learned Subordinate Judge. Chengalpattu, on a consideration of the merits. allowed the avail setting aside the dismissal of the suit instituted by the respondent herein and decreeing it as Prayed for. On 25-7-1980, the vetitioner filed I. A. No. 140 of 1980 in A. S. No. 188 of 1977 11nd Additional Sub-Court Chengalvattu. to condone a delay of 690 davs in filing an an idlication to rehear the appeal. In the affidavit in support of that a volication. the Petitioner referred to the filing of the appeal in A. S. No. 178 of 1973, Sub-Court, Kancheepuram, by the respondent and the engaging of a counsel by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further stated that the counsel so engaged by the petitioner informed the Petitioner in 1977 that the appeal had been transferred to the Sub-Court. Chengalvattu. Even thereafter. the Petitioner claimed that the Petitioner was under the impression that a notice for the hearing of the any deal will be sent by Sub-Court, Chengalpattu but that it did not receive any such notice and that the Petitioner became aware of the result of the appeal only on 28-6-1980. The Petitioner thus claimed that the petition for restoration of the appeal had been filed within 30 days of the date of knowledge of the result of the avail and raved that the exparte disposal of the appeal should be set aside and that the avail should also be reheard on its merits.

(2.) That application was resisted by the respondent herein on the ground that even according to the petitioner. the petitioner was aware of the transfer of the appeal from Sub-Court. Kancheepuram to Sub-Court. Chengalpattu and that in spite of it the Petitioner did not take any status whatever for defending the appeal. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner had been informed about the result of the arveal by the respondent by communications addressed to the petitioners by the Managing trustee of the respondent. A further objection was, also r4i sod. that fore . Sub-Court Chengalvattu. . Thiru. Varada, Reddi. Advocate. offered to appear on behalf of the petitioner on 15-2-1978. The respondent also contended that the disposal of the avail was, on the merits and not ex Parte and that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained every day's delay.

(3.) The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, ChengalPattu who enouired into this application held that the Petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay and that the disposal of the appeal was also on the merits. and. therefore. no ground was made out to restore and rehear the avveal. disposed of earlier on 4-8-1978. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in the civil revision Petition.