SIVASUBRAMANIAM Vs. KANDASAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.392 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif Court at Oddanchatiram and the suit was filed for declaring the sale deed dated 17.06.1974 executed by the 1st defendant as null and void among various other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default by the Trial Court on account of non appearance of the plaintiff before it. Since there was a delay of 1385 for restoration of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.164 of 2014 for condoning the delay and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the reasons adduced by the plaintiff for condonation are far from satisfactory. Aggrieved by same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that the suit schedule property was an ancestral property and after the demise of the plaintiff's grandfather, the plaintiff's father and his brother had divided the property among themselves and were in peaceful possession of the property. It is the further case of the petitioners that his father was a spendthrift and obtained loans from various persons for leading luxurious life, when the plaintiff was a minor, which do not in any way control the plaintiff now. The plaintiff, on coming to know of the fact that his father had executed sale deed in favour of defendants so as to settle the entire loan, had rushed to the Court by way of filing a suit in O.S.No.392 of 2007.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that the suit was originally filed before the learned District Munsif, Palani in O.S.No.711 of 1996 and subsequently, pursuant to the constitution of new Court at Oddanchatram, the same was transferred to the file of District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram and the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.392 of 2007 and the said transfer was intimated neither to the petitioner / plaintiff nor to his counsel. Since no communication had been received from his counsel for appearance on 17.08.2010, he did not appear before the Court and his counsel also did not cast his appearance on the said date, which resulted in dismissal of the suit. The factum of dismissal of the suit was known to him after a long gap, when he visited the office of his counsel and thereafter, he had engaged a new counsel and filed I.A.No.165 of 2014 seeking to condone the delay. The Trial Court, on the false presumption of wilful non appearance, has erroneously dismissed the application, which needs interference by this Court.