BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. S RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order dated 20.08.2007 in I.A.No.83 of 2007 in O.S.No.77 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil dismissed an application to condone the delay of 8 days in restoring the suit on the ground that the Advocate Clerk is not a competent authority to sign an affidavit on behalf of the parties. He would further submit that the original suit was filed for sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) from the respondent who was a telephone booth owner. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed on 05.08.2004. He would further submit that the learned counsel has prepared a restoration petition on time, however, due to boycott he was unable to file the petition on time and he was constrained to file a delay excuse petition for a delay of 8 days. During the trial, the petitioner was unable to appear due to some urgent work and therefore, the Advocate Clerk has signed the affidavit. After hearing both sides, the lower Court has passed an order dismissing the petition on 11.03.2005. Only after the receipt of copy of the order, the petitioner came to know that the Advocate Clerk has signed the affidavit for delay excuse petition. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the petition in I.A.No.83 of 2007 to review the order by in I.A.No.1556 of 2004. The review petition was also dismissed by the lower Court. Against the order, the petitioner has filed this present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil has wrongly dismissed the earlier application on the ground that the affidavit was signed by the Advocate Clerk. He would further submit that the Advocate Clerk is a competent person to sign the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner and the Clerk is well versed about the facts of the case. He has submitted that the lower Court has failed to consider the delay which is only 8 days and the suit is only for recovery of money for usage of telephone and dismissal of earlier application only for technical ground is erroneous. The contention of the petitioner is that the lower Court need not look into the technical defeats and the delay is only 8 days and this Court should have allowed the petition.