S MUNIYANDI Vs. MUMTAJ; MYDEEN PITCHAIKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of dismissal of I.A.No.424 of 2014 in O.S.No.306 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.306 of 2009 in the Court of I Additional Sub Court for specific performance of sale agreement against the legal heirs of late Vellaya Rowther, with whom he had entered into a sale agreement. The suit was dismissed for default on 17.03.2011. After a delay of 1207 days, the said I.A.No.424 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. The Trial Court dealt with it under Section 3 of the Limitation Act and coming to the view that each day delay has not been explained, dismissed I.A.No.424 of 2014.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff was led to believe that there will be compromise. Efforts were undertaken after the demise of Vellaya Rowther and he was made to believe it and he is also in possession of the property. In such circumstances, he was not serious about the suit as he was hoping that the matter would be amicably settled. In the circumstances, in view of the absence of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed as he has not taken steps to amend the plaint i.e. to include the L.Rs.