VENKATAPATHY Vs. JAGAPATHY (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the plaintiff had sought for restoration of the suit, along with an application for condoning delay of 2281 days and being unsuccessful in such attempt, present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr.R.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.T.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent.

(3.) Mr.R.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaring the plaintiff's right, title and interest in the suit properties and for a consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's rights and the plaintiff's tenants occupying the suit property. The suit came to be dismissed for non prosecution and claiming that the plaintiff was aged more than 85 years, he was not able to travel long distances and he also never knew about the suit being dismissed after being posted in the special list on 4/11/2013, the plaintiff sought for restoration of the suit. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had given satisfactory explanation for the delay which was only on account of his ill health and advanced age, which restricted his movements out of the house without help. The learned counsel would therefore state that the Trial Court should have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay.