ZULAIHA SYED MOHIDEEN Vs. D. VISALAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition questioning the correctness of the Order dated 15.12.2012 passed in I.A. No. 8835 of 2012 in O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by which, the Petition filed by the respondents herein for condonation of delay of 2045 days in re-presenting the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.10.2002 in O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 was allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) (I) The admitted facts in this case is that the revision petitioner herein, as Plaintiff, has originally filed the suit in C.S. No. 103 of 1993 before this Court for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.01.1992. Subsequently, the suit stood transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 on the file of learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. On notice in the suit, the first defendant filed vakalat through her advocate on 07.03.1997. The first defendant also filed her written statement on 25.07.1997. While so, the suit was dismissed for default and to restore the suit which was dismissed for default, the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A. No. 152 of 1999 to set aside the order, in which notice was ordered. On notice, except the fourth defendant, all the defendants have filed vakalath on various dates. As far as the 7th and 8th defendants are concerned, they have filed Vakalath on 08.02.1999 and the defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 have filed vakalath on 22.03.1999. Ultimately, the suit was restored to file.

(3.) (I) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/revision petitioner would contend that the trial court ought not to have ordinarily allowed the petition to condone the enormous delay of 2045 days in re-presenting the Petition in I.A. No. 8835 of 2012 in the absence of any explanation, much less acceptable explanation offered by the respondents. The court below ought to have taken into consideration that the respondents have filed one application after the other and have successfully dragged on the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that earlier, on behalf of the fourth defendant/respondent, who according to the respondents is a lunatic, an application was filed by the seventh respondent and it was dismissed. As against the same, CRP (NPD) No. 872 and 873 of 2007 and it was allowed by this Court on 13.02.2008 with a direction to produce the fourth defendant, a lunatic, before the trial court and on such production the trial court was directed to refer him to a Psychiatrist attached to the Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk, Chennai. This order dated 13.02.2008 passed by this Court has not been complied with and the fourth defendant was never produced before the trial court or before the Psychiatrist, as directed by this Court.