M V DHANASEKARAN Vs. K KOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 17.3.2008 passed in I.A.No,231 of 2001 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. Anim adverting upon the order dated 17.3.2008 passed in I.A.No,231 of 2001 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.

(2.) A 'resume' of facts, which are absolute necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No,380 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, on 26.4.2001. Whereas, admittedly the limitation period for filing the suit was uptil 30.5.2001. Along with the plaint itself an I.A. was filed so as to get extended the time to pay the deficit Court fee. Six weeks time was granted by the order dated 30.4.2001, which expired by 6.6.2001. Another application was filed on 6.6.2001 for getting extended the time and thereby, a period of six more weeks was got extended for paying the deficit Court fee. Thereafter, on compliance, the plaint was numbered. The petitioner/first defendant filed I.A.No,231 of 2006 for rejecting the plaint. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed on various grounds. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant would develop his argument by placing reliance on the grounds of revision to the effect that on both the occasions, when the extension of time was granted for payment of deficit Court fee, the Court ought to have ordered notice to the petitioner/first defendant and after hearing him alone, the granting of extension of time should have been considered but that was not done so. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for rejecting of the plaint.

(3.) A bare perusal of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court would make the point amply clear that the trial Court should not have numbered the suit, without ordering notice in both the I.As. Paragraph 21(7) of the Division Bench's judgement, would clearly indicate and demonstrate that if the extension of time that would be granted by the lower Court exceeds the period of limitation, certainly notice is contemplated. It is therefore crystal clear that in both the I.As, notice was contemplated, but unfortunately, the trial Court had not issued the same. Hence, in this factual circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant should be given due opportunity of put forth his contentions in accordance with law. It is ex facie and prima facie clear that the respondent/plaintiff as well as the lower Court, without adhering to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to supra, dealt with the matter. Hence, the trial Court is directed to take off the suit from the file and order notice in both the I.As to the petitioner/first defendant. Whereupon, the petitioner/first defendant should be allowed to file counters and after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides, the I.As shall be disposed of purely on merits. Depending upon the order that would be passed in the IAs, the suit could be renumbered or otherwise. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter within two months from the date of ordering notice and both the parties shall extend their full co-operation for the early disposal of the matter. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.