P S SIVAGNANAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 19.9.2006 in I.A.No.162 of 2006 in O.S.No,69 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.162 of 2006 has among other things observed that the suit has been filed praying for compensation as against R.Pudupatti Town Panchayat and that the second defendant has retired from service and subsequent officer who has taken charge and after looking into the files has come to know about the details of the case and that the present application has been filed along with the written statement and the delay of 635 days in filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has occurred due to the aforesaid reason of the second defendant since been retired and this kind of delay is in the normal course of office procedure and therefore to provide an opportunity to the respondents/petitioners/defendants, the application has been allowed with a condition that the respondents/petitioners/defendants can pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff on or before 26.9.2006 failing which the petition shall stands dismissed.

(3.) IN response, the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff in the counter filed before the trial Court as among other things stated that the main suit has been filed in the year 1997 and for a period of seven years, the written statement has been filed and that as per the relevant provisions of CPC, the written statement has to be filed with in a period of three months and for nearly seven years and apart from the above, even after an exparte decree has been passed as early as on 5.4.2002, later even after the expiry of 3/4th year, the written statement has not been filed by the respondents and in short each and every day's delay as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be explained and the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent/first defendant to the effect that the second respondent/second defendant has retired in the year 2005 etc are not to be accepted and also the revision petitioner/respondent /plaintiff has issued a notice on 21.12.2005 about the factum of exparte decree having been passed by the trial Court and since the application suffers from lack of bonafides, an application has to be dismissed with costs.