PUSHPAM Vs. RAJU THENKONDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against against the order passed in I.A.No.738 of 2008 in A.S.No.23 of 2001, dated 10.10.2008, on the file of Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.

(2.) The appellants are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.11 of 1996, on the file of the learned District Munsif - Cum - Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. The said suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff, for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The appellants filed written statement. After the trial, the said suit was decreed on 11.04.2001. Thereafter, the appellants filed A.S.No.23 of 2001, on the file of the Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. Since the counsel for the the appellants reported no instructions, the said Appeal Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.10.2003. Subsequently, the appellants filed I.A.No.738 of 2008 in A.S.No.23 of 2001 to restore the appeal. According to the appellants, the first appellant was suffering from jaundice and went out of station for taking treatment and thereafter, she came to know that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The non- appearance of the appellants are neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for restoring the appeal suit.

(3.) The respondent filed counter affidavit in the said I.A.No. 738 of 2008 and denied that the first appellant was suffering from jaundice. He further contended that the appellants have not given any valid reason for restoration of the Appeal Suit and has also not given any particulars of illness of the first appellant. The appellants took 70 adjournments in the appeal suit and did not conduct the first appeal. The appellants, in violation of decree passed by the trial Court, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent. The respondent filed E.P.No.16 of 2017 in O.S.No. 11 of 1996. In such circumstances, only to drag on the proceedings, the appellants have filed A.S.No.23 of 2001 and the present appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.