LAWS(MAD)-1995-12-43

SEETHA Vs. RANI

Decided On December 08, 1995
SEETHA Appellant
V/S
RANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have preferred this civil revision against the dismissal of their C.M.P. No.796 of 1995 praying for excusing the delay of 39 days in filing the interlocutory application to restore the C.M.A. No.19 of 1995 filed by them. In the suit ex parte decree was passed as early as 17.2.1992 whereby the plaintiff who are widow and son of the deceased employee in question could secure the terminal benefits from the employer of the deceased, to the extent of about Rs.40,000. THE petitioner's herein filed LA. No. 10410 of 1993 to set aside the ex parte decree. (No doubt the other LA. No.1548 of 1993 filed by them to excuse the delay of 306 days in filing the application to set aside the decree is said to have been allowed). THE said LA. No.10410 of 1993 was dismissed on 11.1.1995. As against the said dismissal the abovesaid C.M.A. No. 19 of 1995 was filed by the petitioners herein. But that was allowed to be dismissed for default on 21.4.1995. And that is why in view of the said delay in filing the application to restore the said C.M.A. No.19 of 1995, C.M.P. No.796 of 1995 was filed.

(2.) THE court below in its impugned order gives two reasons for dismissing the C.M.P. No.796 of 1995. (i) THE reason given in the supporting affidavit is unacceptable in the absence of any supporting evidence: (ii) THE petition has been filed only as a delaying tactics for causing inconvenience and loss to the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also drew my attention to the fact that at one stage even a compromise memo was filed by both the rival parties and in such a situation the C.M.A. No.19 of 1995 must be restored and allowed to be heard on merits. But, first of all, the said compromise memo has not been signed on behalf of the minor defendant (defendant No.2). Further, it is also not clear whether necessary formalities prescribed in Civil Procedure Code (particularly O.32, Rule 7 thereof), pertaining to a compromise on behalf of minors have been complied with. Further, in the counter in C.M.P. No.796 of 1995, the respondents have also stated thus: ".. that subsequent to filing the compromise memo before the Honourable Trial court, the 1st petitioner started to say that she will not pay even a paise to anybody out of the service benefits... I and my son... decided to withdraw the compromise memo filed." In the light of the above facts, I cannot come to a difference conclusion. I see no merit at all. Hence, this C.R.P. No.3319 of 1995 is not admitted but dismissed.