M. KRIPANITHI Vs. P. ANBUMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS.No.3180/2005 which suit was pending on the file of the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein.

(2.) OS.No.3180/2005 had been filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of 1/10th share with respect to the suit property consequent to an Agreement of Sale dtd. 8/6/1995. The suit property is land and building measuring 2 grounds and 1299 sq.ft., in Mahalakshmi Street, T.Nagar, Chennai.

(3.) The suit had been instituted against 7 defendants. The said suit, unfortunately, did not proceed in its normal way and owing to various reasons, when it was posted in the special list, owing to non appearance of the plaintiff, had been dismissed for non prosecution on 12/9/2007. The plaintiff then appears to have filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC in SR.No.46167/2007 and a perusal of the original records shows that it had been presented in the office on 22/10/2007. This would indicate that the application had been presented well after thirty days which is the time prescribed within which an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC should be filed. Since it had been filed after expiry of thirty days, an application to condone the delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act should have been filed. It was not filed. The fact that it was not filed and that it was pre-requisite to file the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was also not pointed out either by the Registry in the City Civil Court or by the learned Judge who subsequently took it up for consideration. This particular Interlocutory Application in IA.SR.No.46167/2007 also did not proceed in a normal manner.