KARTHA OF HUF SUBRAMANIAM Vs. KARUPPANNA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 13.12.2007 passed in I.A.No.1208 of 2007 in O.S.No,456 of 1995 by the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the civil revision petition would run thus. The revision petitioner, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No,456 of 1995 before the Principal District Munsif, Dharapuram, seeking declaration and permanent injunction, so as to safe-guard his right to take water from the common well to his property as per the partition deed. However, the suit was once dismissed for default. Subsequently, it was restored. Thereafter the defendants/respondents have not filed any written statement. The defendants set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on 17.2.1997. As such, after a lapse of 2507 days, in other words, almost 8 years, the defendants had chosen to file I.A.No.1208 of 1995 under Section 57 of the Limitation Act for getting the delay condoned in filing the I.A. under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. The plaintiff filed the counter highlighting that the reasons found set out in the affidavit are all false as the respondents/defendants were very much present in the village throughout and they participated in the land acquisition proceeds and criminal case and also conducted milk business and supplied milk to the Co-operative Society however suppressing all these facts, the affidavit was filed by the defendants as though they were away from the village and that was why they could not file the application to get the ex-parte order set aside. Despite all these, the lower Court allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.2000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed this revision on various grounds.

(3.) THE warp and woof, the gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of all those decisions cited supra, is to the effect that on valid reasons cited by the petitioners for getting the delay condoned, the Court has to liberally consider and condone the delay.