Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1581 (MAD)

T. Marimuthu v. Rajavel & Others

2007-06-04

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2007
Judgment :- Challenging the order of the I Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam made in I.A.No.2753 of 2006 in O.S.No.214 of 2002, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed. The above said Interlocutory application has been filed seeking extension of time for payment of cost awarded in another application in which the plaintiff sought to set aside the order of dismissal for non-prosecution. 2. The suit was filed for declaration and other consequential reliefs. Admittedly, the suit was dismissed for default on 3. 2005. The petition filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 307 days in restoration application was allowed on condition to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/- on or before 14. 2006. The petitioner filed an application for extension of time and the said application was allowed on 14. 2006 and the petitioner was directed to pay the said costs on or before 24. 2006. Again on 24. 2006, due to some family problem, the petitioner filed an application for extension of time. The said application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the said costs on or before 6. 2006. On 6. 2006 also, costs was not paid. Consequently, the said application was dismissed as cost was not paid. 3. The only point urged by the revision petitioner before this Court is that it was the suit for declaration and the non-payment of costs was neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the family circumstances which was out of his control. Hence, the lower court should have considered and allowed the application, instead, the lower court has dismissed the extension application. Hence, the said order has got to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there was a counter claim and at the time of dismissal of the suit for default, the counter claim has been ordered and the respondents were allowed to execute the counter claim and notice was also served on the plaintiff who is the revision petitioner herein. Only thereafter, the application to set aside the order of dismissal was filed and that too, with a delay of 307 days. Though the lower court has shown indulgence for payment of costs by extending the time twice, the petitioner has not complied with the said condition. Only thereafter, the application to set aside the order of dismissal was filed and that too, with a delay of 307 days. Though the lower court has shown indulgence for payment of costs by extending the time twice, the petitioner has not complied with the said condition. Under the circumstances, the lower Court is perfectly correct in dismissing the said application. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the lower court has got to be sustained. True, it is, the suit was dismissed for default on 3. 2005. The application to set aside the dismissal of default was filed along with the application to condone the delay of 307 days. It is pertinent to point out that the lower court, after considering the circumstances, has allowed the application and ordered for restoration of the suit. but there was a direction for payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- within the stipulated time viz. 14. 2006. It was not done so. Thereafter, when an application was filed for extension of time, the Court has extended the time till 24. 2006 and thereafter further extension of time was granted on 6. 2006. Even then, the condition was not complied with. Under the circumstances, the extension time application was dismissed by the lower court. Now, it is also brought to the notice of the Court that counter claim filed by the defendant in the said suit has also been allowed and execution proceedings was filed to execute the counter claim and only after service of notice in the execution proceedings, the petitioner has taken steps to file a condonation petition in filing restoration application. All would go to show that the order of the lower court does not deserve any interference, since the petitioner has no care for law or for Courts proceedings. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case where the order of the lower court has got to be sustained. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, MP.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.