M SUMATHI Vs. RADHA AMMAL (DIED) AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr.T.P.Kathirravan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner are heard. The copy of the order of the Court below which is challenged in the revision, grounds of revision and the documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) The petitioner herein was not a party to the suit, which came to be instituted on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee as O.S.No.1850 of 1992. The said suit came to be filed by (1) Radha Ammal and (2) Chandra against M.S.Mani and M.S.Arumugam (the respondents 3 and 4 herein) for a bare injunction in respect of the suit property based on the averment that they were the owners and were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the defendants in the suit, namely respondents 3 and 4 herein, were attempting to trespass into the suit property. The suit instituted in 1992 was prolonged for about 18 years and it came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 29.03.2010.

(3.) From the copy of the amended plaint and the copy of the ex parte judgment and decree passed in the said suit by the learned Additional District Munsif on 29.03.2010, which are found included in the typed set of papers, it appears that Radha Ammal and Chandra died and Kuppa Bai (the second respondent herein) came to be impleaded by an order dated 21.06.2005 made in I.A.No.1705 of 2005. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not in a position to state who were all the original plaintiffs and who were all the plaintiffs impleaded subsequent to the filing of the suit. The learned counsel is also not in a position to state whether Durai was a plaintiff in the original plaint or he was impleaded subsequently. However from the averments found in the amended plaint, a copy of which has been included in the typed set of papers, this Court is able to find out the fact that the suit was originally filed by Radha Ammal and Chandra against the respondents 3 and 4 herein; that out of two plaintiffs, the first plaintiff Radha Ammal died in 1999 and the second plaintiff Chandra was recognised as the sole legal representative of Radha Ammal; that subsequent thereto Chandra also died whereupon Durai and Kuppa Bai, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, were impleaded as plaintiffs 3 and 4 by virtue of an order dated 21.06.2005 made in I.A.No.1705 of 2005. The respondents 1 and 2, who got themselves impleaded as plaintiffs 3 and 4, after dragging on the case for about five years after their impleadment and after a lapse of nearly 18 years from the date of institution of the suit, did not evince interest in pursuing the case and they left the suit to be dismissed for default. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.03.2010. Thereafter none of the above said plaintiffs chose to prefer any application in time for restoration of the suit or within a reasonable time after the time for filing such an application expired along with an application to condone the delay.