KANCHANA Vs. MINNAKKAL VILLAGE PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. She filed the said suit for a permanent injunction and for a mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants. The suit was dismissed for default on 13.07.2009. The revision petitioner filed a petition under Order IX Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code to restore the suit on file along with I.A.No.385 of 2007 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 455 days in filing the petition to restore the suit and the same was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, Namakkal District on 29.01.2009. Aggrieved over the said orders, the revision petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is an enabling provision to assist the litigants, who failed to do an act within the prescribed time period, as originally fixed under various enactments. The appellant must show sufficient cause in order to condone the delay. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be defined because, it is very wide and liberal in nature. The doctrine of condonation of law has been brought under the Act, since the main aim of the court is to provide justice.

(3.) In the instant case, the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No. 59 of 2003 before the District Munsif, Rasipuram, Namakkal District for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the superstructure put up by the first defendant in the suit property.