SEENIAPPAN (DIED) Vs. KANNIMUTHAL (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.345 of 2006, as against the dismissal of his I.A.No.525 of 2014 dated 04.12.2017 which was filed to condone the delay of 246 days in restoring the suit which was dismissed for default on 19.12.2013.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Revision Petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents herein in O.S.No.345 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the learned counsel, the Revision Petitioner is aged about more than 81 years and he is having so many old age ailments and because of his health condition he was not in a position to appear before the Trial Court to give the instruction to his counsel on 19.12013 when the suit was posted for trial. The Revision Petitioner came to know about the same subsequently. Thereafter he filed the above I.A.No.525 of 2014 to condone the delay of 246 days in restoring the suit on file.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the Respondent/ Defendant contenting that though the Revision Petitioner stated that because of his old age ailment, he was not able to appear before the Court on the date when the suit was posted for Trial and subsequently he filed the above application to condone the delay, however to substantiate the same he has not produced any medical certificate. Further there is no acceptable, proper and sufficient reason was given by the Revision Petitioner to condone the delay of 246 days in restoring his suit. As regards the condonation of delay is concerned, each and every day delay should be explained properly. In this case the Revision Petitioner has not assigned any valid reason to condone the delay of 246 days and hence he prayed to dismiss the application.