SUBRAMANIAM Vs. GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.03.2008 in I.A.No.1231 of 2007 in O.S.No,94 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Perambalur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 433 days in filing an application to restore the I.A.No.1663 of 2004.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1231 of 2007 on 25.03.2008, has inter alia opined that 'the reasons assigned by the first petitioner/first defendant that he has been affected by jaundice cannot be accepted and further in this regard no documents and details have been produced by the petitioners and resultantly dismissed the application.'

(3.) IN the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff (decree holder), it is among other things averred that I.A.No.1663 of 2004 which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed on 18.07.2006 and again to restore the same in I.A.No.1231 of 2007 the same reason of jaundice has been projected and as a matter of fact, in E.P.No,80 of 2005 the first civil revision petitioner/first defendant's Advocate has filed vakalat on 17.11.2006 and has filed counter on 15.06.2007 and later it has been adjourned to different dates for hearing and seven times the petitioners have prayed for time in between 17.11.2006 and 15.06.2007 and later on only filed the counter to the execution proceedings and that suit has been filed in the year 2001 and the same has been decreed in the year 2004 and later an execution application has been filed in 2005 and after procrastinating the matter to a maximum extent now it is not to say that the petitioners have got a case and that they have not filed written statement earlier cannot be an acceptable one and therefore has prayed for the dismissal of the application.