T P KOLANTHASAMY Vs. BALUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/respondents 4 to 6/defendants 4 to 6 have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 11.1.2008 in I.A.No,292 of 2005 in I.A.No.176 of 2005 in O.S.No,82 of 2005 passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Bhavani.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing order in I.A.No,292 of 2005, has, inter alia, observed that since the main suit O.S.No,82 of 2005 has been filed for partition only if the matter is decided on full fledge merits, a decision can be arrived at and in that view, has allowed the application in directing the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs to pay a cost of Rs.250/- each to the petitioners/respondents 4 to 6 and 7th respondent/12th respondent to be paid on or before 23.01.2008 filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 54 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the main suit O.S.No,82 of 2005 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs share etc. In this connection, it is to be pointed out that on going through the averments of the counter filed to I.A.No,292 of 2005, it is crystal clear that the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs are in the regular habit of filing interlocutory applications like I.A.No.176 of 2005, I.A.No,431 of 1999 and I.A.No,256 of 2004 etc. and on all occasions the trial Court has been good enough to allow the said applications on payment of cost and the main suit has been restored to file on those occasions and once again allowing the I.A.No.176 of 2005 to go for dismissal the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed present I.A.No,292 of 2005 to restore the same and in that process, there has occasioned the delay of 54 days. Therefore, this is a clear case of indifferent attitude adopted by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs and certainly they have not diligent in conducting the main suit so as to enable the Court to render a decision on merits on all issues in a complete and comprehensive way.