PARAMANANDAN Vs. SELVANAYAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Third Defendant/Third Respondent is the Revision Petitioner herein. The First Respondent herein filed the Suit in O.S. No. 4449 of 2001, on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for delivery of possession. The said Suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, she filed an Appeal, but, there happened to be a delay on 1670 days in filing the same. Therefore, she filed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1670 days in preferring the Appeal and that Application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Suit was dismissed, on 24.12.2003, and for more than 4 years, the First Respondent/Plaintiff did not take any steps to file the Appeal, but, filed the same, after a delay of 1670 days and the only reason stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Application is that, she got certain documents in her favour by applying through R.T.I. Act and that documents would prove her ownership and therefore, the Appeal was filed with a delay and such reason cannot be accepted and the parties cannot be permitted to agitate the matter, after collection of evidence and she must be vigilant in collecting the evidence before filing the Suit and the Court below, without properly appreciating various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, erred in condoning the delay.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied upon the following reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his case:

(3.) The learned Counsel, by placing reliance upon the judgments referred above, submitted that the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside, as the discretion was not properly exercised by the Court below.