RAMATHAL Vs. PALANISAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred against the order, dated 16. 12. 2003 made in C. M. A. No. 26 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the fair and decreetal order, dated 06. 09. 2000 made in I. A. No. 628 of 2000 in O. S. No. 502 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O. S. No. 502 of 1996 against the respondents herein, seeking a decree of partition and separate possession of her share in the schedule of property of the plaint.

(3.) MS. P. T. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the case was posted on 07. 06. 2000 for trial. When the matter was called, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial court made an endorsement as "no instructions for the plaintiff", hence, the suit was dismissed on the same day, however, the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed the application within 30 days to set aside the exparte order of dismissal and to restore the suit. However, the said application filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was dismissed by the court below. Hence, she preferred the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. As per the impugned Judgment, it is seen that the court below has decided that the revision petitioner / plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands.