BAGYALAKSHMI Vs. RAMA PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC , against the order dated 10.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.528 of 2007 in O.S.No.698 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,Tiruppur.) The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 10.6.2009 in I.A.No.528 of 2007 in O.S.No.698 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur in allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant filed under Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 945 days by directing the respondent/defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards cost of stamp papers and registration charges incurred by the petitioners/plaintiffs into Court before 22.6.2009 etc.,

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.528 of 2007 has inter alia opined that' there is nothing mentioned by the Court while passing a conditional order directing the respondent/defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- into Court before 22.6.2009 towards the cost of stamp papers and registration charges incurred by the petitioners/plaintiffs and it has also further directed the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost before 22.6.2009 and also directed the amount of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank till the final decision is arrived at in the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contends that a liberal approach formula made by the trial Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and to lend to support his contentions, he relies on the decision reported in Sundar Gnanavolivu rep by its Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Rukmini-v- Rajendran Gnanavolivu rep by its Power of Attorney Agent Veina Gnanavolivu(2003(1)L.W.585)wherein it has inter alia held that' when there is total lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner while coming forward with the present application, going by the Principles set out in the various Judgments, were are of the view that this case falls within the exception to the rule and does not deserve the liberal approach formula in matters relating to condonation of delay. We are therefore not satisfied with the reasons adduced by the petitioner while seeking for condonation of delay of 431 days in filing the first appeal etc.'