MADASAMY Vs. SOLLAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 02.04.2002, made in I.A.No.990/2000 in O.S.No.311/1991 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, refusing to condone the delay of 1617 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. D-3 is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) PLAINTIFF has alleged that by the act of Defendants, the PLAINTIFF was excommunicated from the village " Sevukankulam, Shenbagaramanallur Village. According to the Defendant, his normal activities like washing and daily routine of his family were affected. The PLAINTIFF has alleged that he was expelled from the Community only because of the acts of the Defendants. Hence the PLAINTIFF has filed the suit for declaration that the act of excommunication of the PLAINTIFF from the Community is illegal, inoperative and unenforceable against the PLAINTIFF and to direct the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- by way of damages for their illegal action against the PLAINTIFF.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of his application, D-3 has preferred this revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that when the suit has been decreed for paying the damages of Rs.16,000/-, for the alleged act of excommunication, the exparte Decree passed against the Revision Petitioner has serious consequences and that an opportunity is to be given to the Revision Petitioner to contest the suit. Placing reliance upon 2005 2 CTC 766 [Mohammed Aslam and others Vs. C.N.A.Gowdhaman], it is submitted that it is not the length of the delay, but only the unreasonableness of the explanation offered.