DHARMAN Vs. CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No,2119 of 2004. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No,492 of 2008.

(2.) CRP.NPD.No,491 of 2008 has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No,52 of 2004 in O.S.No,303 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. To condone the delay of 1039 days in preferring a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC the said application was filed in O.S.No,303 of 1993. The plaintiff in O.S.No,303 of 1993 has filed the suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to the family of the plaintiff and for recovery of possession and also for the mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed exparte on 2.1.2001. To set aside the exparte decree after condoning the delay of 1039 days, the revision petitioner had filed I.A.No,52 of 2004 in O.S.No,303 of 1993. After going through the averments in the petition as well as the counter and after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence let in on both sides, the learned Principal District Munsif had dismissed the I.A.No,52 of 2004 in O.S.No,303 of 1993.

(3.) AS far as CRP.NPD.No,492 of 2008 is concerned there is no valid reasoning stated in the affidavit to the petitioner in I.A.No,52 of 2004 in O.S.No,303 of 1993 to condone the delay of 1039 days in preferring a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC as held by the trial Judge. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned trial Judge in I.A.No,52 of 2004 in O.S.No,303 of 1993 on the file the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kallakuruchi. It is made clear that till the disposal of O.S.No,230 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, the execution proceedings in O.S.No,303 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, shall not be proceeded with.