ELIZEBATH DHANALAKSHMI Vs. NARAYANIYAMMAL(DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dtd. 23/12/2016 made in I.A.No.1622 of 2014 in O.S.No.578 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed a suit in O.S.No.578 of 2004 before the trial Court for declaration, to declare that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement. While so, during the pendency of the suit, the third defendant died leaving behind his legal heirs/proposed parties viz., the respondents 5 to 9. Hence, the petitioner herein has moved a Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1622 of 2014 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 707 days in filing the LR application, to bring the legal heirs of the deceased third defendant on record.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the third defendant died and a memo was filed on 12/11/2011. However, on 20/3/2012, the trial Court dismissed the suit against the third defendant for not taking steps. The legal heirs of the third defendant, who was the vendor of the suit properties, are just and necessary parties and sought their impleadment. However, there was a delay of 707 days in bringing the LR application. The reason assigned by the petitioner for delay are that he was aged about 75 years and was undergoing Siddha Medical treatment for Jaundice and for knee pain and hence he was unable to meet the counsel to take steps to bring the legal heirs of the third defendant on record. Hence, the petitioner sought for condonation of delay of 707 days in filing the LR application. The said IA was resisted by the respondents by filing counter affidavits, denying the averments contained in IA stating that the petitioner has not evinced any interest to expedite the suit proceedings from 2004 to till date. The intention of the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of IA.