K RAMACHANDARAN Vs. MAYICKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel on both sides. This Revision has been directed against the order passed in CMA. No. 81 of 2008 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order in I. A. No. 16043 of 2006 in O. S. No. 9775 of 1993 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. I. A. No. 16043 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioner herein / plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit which was dismissed for default on 22. 08. 2006.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order passed in CMA. No. 81 of 2008 will go to show that when the suit was in part heard stage the revision petitioner as P. W. 1 has failed to subject himself for cross-examination inspite of sufficient adjournments have been given by the trial Court and as per the order of this Court in CRP. No. 515 to 518 of 2006 dated 26. 4. 2006, the trial court was directed to complete the trial on or before 31. 08. 2005. The revision petitioner is a senior citizen. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner to conduct his case before the trial Court, but on payment of Rs. 3,000/- towards costs.

(3.) IN fine, the Revision is allowed on condition the revision petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the contesting respondent (R1 herein) on or before 27. 04. 2009, failing which the revision shall deem to have been dismissed. On compliance of the condition, the trial Judge is directed to restore O. S. No. 9775 of 1993 to his file and dispose of the same in accordance with law within two months thereafter.