MURUGAN Vs. S.MAHENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THIS case is having a chequered carrier of its own. Initially the suit was filed before the Subordinate Court, Madurai, which itself suo motu, on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, sent the case to the Munsif Court; whereupon both the sides appeared and D5-Alagar remained ex-parte at that time itself. However, no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants; whereupon, ex-parte decree was passed. Thereafter, the I.A. No.269 of 2007 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay condoned in filing the I.A. under Order 9 Rule 31 of CPC get set aside the ex-parte decree. However, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed for default. Whereupon, D1 (P1) filed I.A.No.1147 of 2008 for getting the I.A.No.869 of 2007 restored and in that I.A., D3 and D4 were parties as P2 and P3. Subsequently, it transpired that even as on the date of filing I.A.No.1147 of 2008, D1(P1) was not alive. However the District Munsif allowed the I.A.No.1147 of 2009 as against which a revision was filed before this Court and that was dismissed. Thereafter, two unnumbered I.As, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC were filed. Both the I.As. were not numbered and they were rejected without numbering, as against which the revision was filed before this Court in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.1690 of 2010 and 783 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 25.04.2011, passed a common order which would run thus:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner / D4 would air the grievance of his client that no detailed order was passed and the Court itself allowed I.A.No.176 of 2012 even ignoring the actual number of days delay. In one breath, the plaintiffs would state that there was a delay of 6 months and 12 days which means that there was 192 days' delay in filing the application. In another breath, the plaintiffs would state that there was 186 days' delay and as such, the Court, without considering all these discrepancies, simply allowed the application.