C GURUNATHAN Vs. M LAKSHMIPRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 630 of 1995 on the file of the court of District Munsif, Gingee, is the revision petitioner herein. The plaintiff had filed O. S. No. 630 of 1995 for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- under a suit promissory note dated 10. 8. 1992. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the defendant had preferred an appeal before the Court of Subordinate Judge, gingee. While preferring the appeal, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed to condone the delay of 404 days in preferring the appeal. The said application in I. A. No. 120 of 2005 in unnumbered A. S. No.--of 2005 was dismissed by the learned first appellate Judge, which necessitated this revision.

(2.) THE learned first appellate Judge while dismissing i. A. No. 120 of 2005 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation act has stated the following reasons for the dismissal:- The petitioner has not given sufficient reason for the delay in preferring the appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit to the petition are not bone-fide.

(3.) A perusal of the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner in I. A. No. 120 of 2005 in unnumbered A. S. No.-- of 2005 will go to show that he had obtained the copy of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 630 of 1995 as early as 1. 10. 2004 itself. According to him, he sustained fracture on the left leg on 20. 09. 2004 and was bed ridden in the house of his son from that day onwards at Chennai. He has not stated in the affidavit that when he actually recovered from his illness. In spite of the receipt of copy of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 630 of 1995 on 1. 10. 2004 itself, he kept quiet without taking any steps to prefer an appeal.