Judgment : 1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 502 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, has filed the said suit for partition of her 1/10th share in the suit properties. The suit has been dismissed on 20.9.1990 for non-payment of batta. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.86 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 982 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit stating that the suit was pending at Melur and she engaged the counsel at Madurai and the counsel has failed to take care of the matter. Thereafter, she came to know about the same and the counsel at Madurai entrusted the matter to the local counsel. Now the jurisdiction lies within the District Munsif Court. 3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that even though enough opportunities have been given for the plaintiff to pay the batta, still the batta has not been paid and the suit has been dismissed for default. Hence, there is no sufficient cause for restoration of the suit as well as the application for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the petition for restoration of the suit. The lower court has dismissed the application against which the present revision has been filed. 4. Both the counsel reiterated what is stated in the affidavit as well as in the counter. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. Though in the normal course, the mistake committed by the counsel cannot be taken as a ground to grant the relief for the party but, atleast in some exceptional cases, the Court has to consider as to who is at fault in committing the mistake in order to give the relief. In this case, admittedly it is the counsels mistake since it is his duty to pay the batta. It is not the case where the plaintiff has been informed that her presence is necessary or for any other purpose or the suit is ready and thereafter, the plaintiff has neglected to attend the court or to meet her counsel. In this case, admittedly it is the counsels mistake since it is his duty to pay the batta. It is not the case where the plaintiff has been informed that her presence is necessary or for any other purpose or the suit is ready and thereafter, the plaintiff has neglected to attend the court or to meet her counsel. When the suit has been dismissed at the mistake of the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel having failed to inform anything about the further progress of the suit to his client, I am of the view that the plaintiff cannot be deprived of her valuable rights, especially when the suit is one for partition. 5. But, however, it is clear that the plaintiff has never made any enquiry with regard to the development of the suit for nearly 5 years after the matter was entrusted to her counsel. At least in this aspect, it can be said that she is negligent. If she had not met the counsel in person, it is her duty to ascertain the stage of the suit at least by communication. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff had any communication with her counsel as to the pendency of the suit. Hence, I am of the view that she can be put on terms for restoration of the suit. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, the order of the lower court in I.A.No. 86 of 1995 is set aside and the suit O.S.No.502 of 1990 is restored on the file on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2, 500/- by way of costs to the respondents herein within four weeks from today, failing which, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. C.M.P. 2862 of 1996 is dismissed. 6. After the restoration of the suit, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on priority basis since the suit is of the year 1990.