S A BOOPALAN Vs. SAPPHIRE BENEFIT FUND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/defendant has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 12.3.2008 made in I.A.No,780 of 2007 in O.S.No,23 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No,780 of 2007 has among other things observed that 'the suit has been posted for trial on 6.9.2006 and further that P.W.1 has been examined in chief and the matter has been adjourned for cross examination of P.W.1 and that the revision petitioner/defendant has not examined himself to prove the fact that he has been severally attacked by viral fever and he has been advised to take bed rest for one month by the Doctor and more over he has not filed any medical certificate or prescription in regard to the purchase of medicines for the said illness and he could not contact his counsel also and that later the revision petitioner/defendant's counsel has reported 'no instructions' and that the decree has been passed on 6.9.2006 and in fact there is no proof that the revision petitioner has been suffering from Chickenkunya during the relevant period and also that the revision petitioner has not contacted his counsel and all the more learned counsel has reported' no instructions' and apart from these facts, an application has been filed on 16.10.2006 and the same has been returned for the reason that notice to the other side has to be given and 15 days time for compliance has been granted but the notice has been given by the petitioner only on 12.9.2007, after an inordinate delay of around 11 months and this proves the intention of the revision petitioner to delay the further proceedings and that it is settled that there should be sufficient cause to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be given and since the revision petitioner has not approached the Court with a clean hands and that an application for condonation of delay has been dismissed with costs.

(3.) THIS Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both parties and noticed the same.