PONNAMMAL Vs. GOPAL GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated dated 13.11.2006 passed by the learned Principal Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District in C.M.A.No,4 of 2006 reversing the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif, Chengam made in I.A.No.110 of 2005 in O.S.No,336 of 1996, the defendants 2 and 3 has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) AN epitome and summation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision would run thus: The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs 2 to 4 along with the deceased first plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief: - declaring the title of the plaintiff's to the suit properties and granting a permanent injunction against the defendants, their men agents and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendants filed the written statement. It appears that twice the suit was dismissed and restored. The lower court dismissed the suit for the third time for default. Whereupon I.A.No.110 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of the suit. However, the trial court dismissed it. ANimadverting upon such dismissal, the plaintiffs have filed C.M.A.No,4 of 2006 before the learned Additional Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, which court by setting aside the order of the lower Court, allowed the I.A subject to payment of cost. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds inter alia thus: The first Appellate Court was wrong in upsetting the order of the lower Court, which took the view considering the laches on the part of the plaintiffs in prosecuting the case. The original suit was of the year 1988 and as such, the first appellate Court without considering the lukewarm approach and laches on the part of the plaintiffs, simply allowed the appeal.

(3.) A litigant should be diligent in prosecuting the case before the Court. However, in this case, the affidavit of the third plaintiff accompanying the I.A bespoke that the deceased first plaintiff was responsible for conducting the case on behalf of other plaintiffs and that after his death, there was no communication from their Advocate. According to P3, he was suffering from typhoid from 10.11.2002 onwards and that he could not contact the Advocate.