VELLAITHAI Vs. V DURAISAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 18.12.2007 passed in I.A. No. 349 of 2006 in unnumbered O.S. No. of 2006 by the learned Sub Judge, Palani, condoning the delay of 961 days in re-presenting the suit for specific performance.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the reason assigned by the respondent for condoning such an inordinate delay of 961 days in re-presenting the suit is vague and unacceptable and in the facts and circumstances, the Court below ought not to have exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent, especially when its attention was drawn to the fact that the plaint was presented without sufficient Court fee, indicating clearly that the respondent had no sources to meet the demand and to establish his readiness and willingness, which is the main criteria in a suit for specific performance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the respondent has taken a document from the husband of the 1st petitioner on 9.11.1998, styled as an agreement of sale and in the year 2004, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 710 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani for declaration that the said agreement was unenforceable and barred by limitation and though the respondent entered appearance, but failed to file a written statement and the suit was decreed ex parte and became final. He would contend that the respondent having filed the present suit for specific performance without paying sufficient Court fee and kept quiet for about three years without representing the papers, merely stating that the bundles have been mixed up with other bundles in his lawyer's office, cannot be considered as just, proper and satisfactory explanation. He would submit that this Court should not show any leniency, as the length of delay is a relevant matter to be taken into account in this case while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.