MOHAMED UMARAY BAROOK Vs. ALIMAL BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition arises against the fair and final orders passed in I.A. No. 8 of 2012 in O.S. No. 43 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 43 of 2006 for specific performance. After the filing of the written statement, since the plaintiffs remained absent, the suit was dismissed for default on 04.01.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No. 8 of 2012 to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 04.01.2011. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, the plaintiffs have stated that the intimation sent to them by their counsel was not received by them, hence, they could not contact their counsel and therefore, there is a delay of 248 days in filing the application to restore the suit. The said application was contested by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs have not given any acceptable reason for condoning the delay of 248 days.

(3.) HEARD Mrs. N. Krishnaveni, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. H. Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.