GOPALAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS Vs. P. VISWANATHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to call for the entire records in so far as it relates to the order passed in I.A.No.74/2006 in unnumbered O.S.No.Nil/2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem and set aside the same.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in unnumbered O.S.No.Nil/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem. The petitioners filed the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.01.2001 against the respondents directing the respondents to execute and register sale deed in favour of petitioners at the cost of petitioners failing which the court may execute and register sale deed in favour of the petitioners by permitting the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration and creating a charge over the property. They filed the suit by affixing court fee of Rs.1/-. The plaint was returned on 03.06.2002 granting one month's time to comply with the defects pointed out. The petitioners re-presented the plaint with application in I.A.No.74 of 2006 to condone the delay of 1472 days in re-presenting the plaint. According to the petitioners, the delay in re-presentation occurred for the following reasons -

(3.) The second respondent filed counter and the same was adopted by respondents 1 and 3 to 11. According to the respondents, the plaint was not re-presented for 3 years. The petitioners are parties in O.S.No.767 of 2001. The first petitioner deposed as PW1 in O.S.No.767 of 2001 on 108.2002 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Salem and his evidence was over only on 20.09.2002. No bonafide reason is given and hence the delay cannot be condoned. The alleged agreement of sale is dated 24.01.2001. The petitioners issued notice through their counsel on 08.06.2001. There is no proof for payment of advance amount of Rs.17,50,000/-. They have not paid balance amount of Rs..32,00,000/- or deposited the same into court. The respondents are totally denying the agreement of sale. O.S.No.767 of 2001 was disposed of long back. The first petitioner is not suffering from any ailments and also submitted that petitioners have no capacity to pay the court fee and they have no capacity to purchase the property. The petitioners are involved in criminal case in respect of the suit property.