PREMA Vs. MURUGAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in A.S.No.185 of 2006 is the civil revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2011 in A.S.No.185 of 2006, dated 09.03.2012, seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 29.01.2010 and to restore the appeal on file so as to enable the petitioners to defend their case for proper adjudication, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, (F.A.C.) Pondicherry.

(2.) The case of the petitioners/appellants is that they are the legal heirs of the deceased/appellants 1 and 2, who are the parents. The Amin from the Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry came to their residence and stated about service of notice in the E.P.No.93 of 2010 in O.S.No.18 of 1998. Under such circumstances, they are persuaded to know the detailed particulars of the E.P. and found out the previous proceedings of the appeal, which was disposed on 29.01.2009. The appeal was preferred by their father, who died pending appeal and after his death, their mother continued the proceedings and she also died leaving the third and fourth petitioners. The learned counsel of their mother namely Thiru.C.S.Narasimhan has also been undergone bye pass surgery for his heart ailment and not attending the Court and thereby neither their mother nor her counsel were not able to attend the Court, as they are undergone long ailments for their diseases. Hence, the petition was filed to set aside the dismissal order dated 29.01.2010 and to restore the appeal on file so as to enable the petitioners/appellants to defend their case for proper adjudication.

(3.) On receipt of the notice, the respondent has appeared and filed his counter stating that admittedly the petitioners are residing in the suit property, the petitioners 3 and 4 were living along with their parents namely the first and second petitioners in the appeal, who are the deceased. The respondent also stated that there is no jurisdiction in alleging that the petitioners did not know anything about the case. The respondent also states that the petitioners have also not given the dates of death of Velayudam and Kousalya @ Kamsala. If the correct date of their death is given, this Court can easily come to the finding that the petition is time barred.