PAPPAMAL (DECEASED) Vs. S GOKULAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2011 made in I.A.No.2119 of 2009 in O.S.CFR No.24466 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

(2.) The deceased first petitioner is the plaintiff, petitioners 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased first petitioner and respondents are the defendants in O.S.CFR No.24466 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The deceased first petitioner filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale date 20.10.1997 against the respondents. According to the deceased first petitioner, she entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1997 with respondents to purchase the suit property. She paid Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and subsequently, she paid another sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and time was extended. The respondents did not execute the sale deed even though the deceased first petitioner was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Hence, the deceased first petitioner filed the said suit for specific performance. Originally, the suit was filed before Subordinate Court, Pollachi on 17.09.2001 and the plaint was returned to be re-presented before the District Munsif Court, Pollachi. The District Munsif Court, Pollachi returned the plaint on 01.09.2005 to be re-presented before the proper Court. The 6th petitioner verified with the Advocate and came to know about the return of the plaint. The deceased first petitioner approached the Advocate and appointed 6th petitioner to file a petition to condone the delay in representing the plaint. While so, during first week of September 2009, the respondents 3 to 6 have approached deceased first petitioner through well wishers for settlement and they agreed to execute the sale deed. On 24.09.2009, a Vardhamana letter was executed between the 5th respondent and 6th petitioner. After execution of the said Vardhamana letter, the respondents did not execute the sale deed. The 6th petitioner sent a telegram to the 5th respondent on 08.10.2009 and filed the present application to condone the delay of 1629 days in re-presenting the plaint. The deceased first petitioner was 93 years old illiterate lady and she was not keeping good health. The delay is neither wilful, nor wanton.

(3.) The respondents filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments and contended that the deceased first petitioner filed suit on 17.09.2001 for specific performance without paying the Court fee and the suit was returned on various dates for certain compliances, including payment of Court fee. Subsequently, on 01.09.2005, the plaint was returned to be re-presented before the concerned Court and even the 6th petitioner, after return by the learned District Munsif, Pollachi, re-presented the plaint only after 4 years on 28.10.2009. The respondents did not receive Rs.1,80,000/- as alleged by the deceased first petitioner and did not make any endorsement extending the time and has not executed any Vardhamana letter. The deceased first petitioner got the sale deed executed for the balance extent of the property. The deceased first petitioner filed suit without paying the proper Court fee. The reason given by the 6th petitioner is not sufficient and valid reason for not re-presenting the plaint. The 6th petitioner is making baseless allegations against the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the application.