M KUPPUSAMI Vs. DECCAN FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel on both sides. This Revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No,782 of 2007 in O.S.No,39 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. I.A.No,782 of 2007 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1714 days in preferring a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there was no proper service of summons on the defendants in the suit. THE summons sent through the Court was retuned by the Process Server as 'vacated and unserved' and the summons sent by post was returned by the postal department as 'left' and the substituted service ordered by the trial Court was published in one issue of Malai Malar in Chennai edition, but the revision petitioners were residing at the property mortgaged at the time of raising the loan.

(3.) IN fine, the Revision is allowed with a condition that the revision petitioners shall deposit Rs.1 lakh to the credit of O.S.No,39 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, failing which the Revision shall deem to have been dismissed. On such deposit, the learned trial Judge shall restore O.S.No,39 of 2002 to his file and after giving an opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement in O.S.No,39 of 2002, shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.