K M SUBRAMANI Vs. R PADMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2004 in I. A. No.15254/2003 in O. S. No.2435/1997 passed by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the first defendant/first respondent in O. S. No.2435/1997 and in I. A. No.15254/2003. The respondents 1 to 10 herein are the plaintiffs/petitioners in Lower Court. Respondents 11 and 12 were given up by the respondents/plaintiffs/petitioners on the ground that they are not necessary parties to the present revision.

(3.) The respondents/plaintiffs/petitioners have filed an application in I. A. No.15254/2003 before the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 989 days in filing the petition to restore the suit on file. It is represented that all the respondents/plaintiffs/petitioners in the suit were represented by the sixth respondent/sixth plaintiff/sixth petitioner as Power Agent. In the Interlocutory Application, the sixth respondent/sixth plaintiff/sixth petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein it is specifically stated that he was not feeling well due to heart ailment and because of the said reason, he was unable to contact his counsel in time and that he came to know that due to the non-appearance, the case was closed and dismissed for default on 06.11.2000 and prayed for condoning the delay of 989 days in filing the restoration application in the main suit which was dismissed for default. Except the reason that the sixth respondent/sixth plaintiff/sixth petitioner was unwell due to heart ailment, there is no averment in the affidavit filed by him as to when he came to know about the date of dismissal of the suit for default. The affidavit filed by the sixth respondent/sixth plaintiff/sixth petitioner is very bald and vague in this regard.