MANIVANNAN Vs. BASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 07.09.2009, passed in I.A.No.19 of 2009 in A.S.No...of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi.

(2.) The respondents aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.72 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, has preferred the first appeal against the appellants and as could be seen from the materials placed on record, the abovesaid appeal papers preferred by the respondents had been returned by the Subordinate Court directing them to comply with the certain defects by order, dated 15.12.2005, inter alia, to pay the deficit Court fees and also to describe the correct position of law as regards the payment of the Court fees, give the proper description of the suit property and accordingly, granted them 30 days time to comply with the abovesaid defects. It is found that without complying with the abovesaid defects, the appeal papers had been re-presented by the respondents and again the Subordinate Court, by order dated 18.01.2006, had returned the appeal papers to comply with the defects as directed by the Office in the return dated, 15.12.2005, granting the respondents 15 days time to comply with the same. Only thereafter, it is found that the respondents had chosen to comply with the defects and re-presented the appeal papers on 13.03.2009. Resultantly, the delay of 1136 days having occurred in the re- presentation of the appeal papers, it is found that the respondents had preferred I.A.No.19 of 2009, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the abovesaid delay in re-presenting the appeal papers and the reason adduced by the respondents for the same is that inasmuch as the first respondent had been working in other station and accordingly, the appeal papers could not be re-presented in time and accordingly, prayed for the condonation of the delay.

(3.) The abovesaid application of the respondents had been resisted by the petitioners putting forth the contentions that the respondents had presented the appeal papers with deficit Court fees and also not obtained necessary permission from the Court in paying the deficit Court fees as per law and on the other hand, after the time allowed by law, they had suo motu affixed the Court fees and re-presented the appeal papers and therefore, the application is not maintainable in law and furthermore, it is stated that the reasons adduced by the respondents are false and the case projected by them that on account of the employment of the first respondent in other station, the appeal papers could not be submitted in time is false and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.