Judgment : Application No.4234 of 2007 has been filed to condone the delay of 678 days in filing the application to restore C.S. No. 473 of 2001 which was dismissed for default in taking steps as against the defendants 2 and 3 on 24. 2005 and to restore the said suit. 2. Application No.4135 of 2007 has been filed to condone the delay of 3323 days in filing the application to restore C.S. No.336 of 1996 which was dismissed for default in taking steps as against the defendants 2 and 3 on 22. 1998 and to restore the said suit. 3. In Application No. 4234 of 2007, the reason for the delay as mentioned in the affidavit is that his counsel instructed Mr. Hameed Basha, his clerk, to follow it up and to take follow up action to serve summons to the defendants 2 and 3 who are at France and the bundle was also handed over to him. But the said clerk died on 7. 2004 due to some serious ailments and therefore, the counsel on record was not even able to get back the case bundle given to him for a long time. It is further stated in the affidavit that the applicant was under the impression that the first defendant who has filed several RCOPs, suits, Eps, CRPs, etc., against him on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as their power agent and is also contesting several RCAs, CRPs, Cr.Ops filed by the applicant against the defendants on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 as their agent with a forged power of attorney would have naturally represented these defendants in the suit also. There is no delay in filing the application to restore the suit dismissed for default against these defendants as no period of limitation is prescribed for applying for restoring the suit dismissed for default in taking steps under Order IX Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, by way of abundant caution it is stated that this condone delay application has been taken out to condone the delay of 678 days in filing the restoration petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the first defendant contended that the applicant itself being an Advocate. He has been appearing in the suits filed on behalf of his wife and son against others. 4. Learned Counsel for the first defendant contended that the applicant itself being an Advocate. He has been appearing in the suits filed on behalf of his wife and son against others. According to the learned counsel for the first defendant, the applicant is squatting on the property without paying a single penny as rent for the past 15 years. He has brought to the notice of this Court to pages 27, 42, 43 and 48 of the typed set filed by him in the suit C.S.No.473 of 2001 in which the judgment, passed by his Lordship M. Srinivasan, former Judge of Supreme Court, while delivering the judgment in C.S.No.761 of 1998 in this Court as His Lordship then was. The said suit was filed by the wife of P.R. Adikesavan in which he himself appeared as P.W.1. The comments made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan, (as His Lordship then was) are as follows:- Page 27: “It should not be forgotten that P.W.1 is a practicing Advocate. This shows that P.W.1 is a scheming man and usually concocts stories.” Page 42: “A bare perusal of the above answers given by P.W.1 go a long way to show that his version is far away from truth.” Page 43: “P.W.1 being a member of the Bar, must have been watching the progress of the suit from time to time and he must have been aware of the first defendant’s giving evidence on 211. 1986.” Page 48: “As I have found that P.W.1 is not accustomed to speak the truth, I accept the contention of the first defendant’s counsel….” 5. Page 57 of the typed set is a complaint letter made by Mr. S.B. Fazluddin, Advocate who appeared for Mr. P.R. Adikesavan in the suit in C.S.No.473 of 2001, which reads as follows: “Myself and my Junior entered appearance and filed our Vakalat in the year 2001 and we were conducting the case as requested by Mr. P.R. Adikesavan. But however, as we have our Vakalat back to Mr. P.R. Adikesaan in the year 2002 itself along with the entire case bundles, hoping that he will intimate the court about the change of Vakalat. However, only then it was realized by us that the said Mr. P.R. Adikesavan. But however, as we have our Vakalat back to Mr. P.R. Adikesaan in the year 2002 itself along with the entire case bundles, hoping that he will intimate the court about the change of Vakalat. However, only then it was realized by us that the said Mr. P.R. Adikesavan has been misusing our Vakalat and has not informed either the Registry or the Court about the same and has been filing applications, petitions using our name despite the fact that we had given our vakalat in his matter. In the light of the above situation, we request you to post this letter before the Hon’ble Court to apprise of the above matter and relieve ourselves from the above mater as otherwise the said Mr. P.R. Adikesavan will continue unabated using our Vakalat, causing embarrassment to us.” 6. Page 58 of the typed set of papers is a complaint given by one K. Sourirajan, against the said P.R. Adikesavan, Advocate, before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. 7. Page 72 is a petition filed in E.P.No.1679 of 2002 in O.S.No.711 of 1999 which shows that for the past 15 years the applicant has not paid even a single pie towards rent for the property occupied by the said P.R. Adikesavan, who has filed several E.As and Memos in the E.P. proceedings. 8. Page 75 of the typed set would show that the said P.R. Adikesavan has filed 11 Miscellaneous Petitions to set aside the eviction order in RCOP.NO.2108 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court. Page 76 shows that he has filed 16 M.Ps in RCOP.No.678 of 2001 before the X Small Causes Court Pages 77 and 78 goes to show that the applicant has filed 8 RCAs before the VII Small Causes Court, out of which 7 were dismissed and one RCA is pending. Pages 78, 79 and 80 would show the number of petitions and suits filed by him to show that he is a court bird. 9. The instant suit in C.S.No.473 of 2001 is a suit filed by him for recovery of money paid as advance and repair charges on the basis of a oral sale agreement with regard to a property in which he was allegedly residing as a tenant, for which he has not paid even a single pie towards rent and order of eviction was passed. Though the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,42,750/- with future interest at 24% per annum, but in the affidavit filed by the applicant/plaintiff, he has stated that he has filed the suit for specific performance or in the alternative for recovery of money and damages. Thus, the very pleadings in the affidavit is misleading and false. The suit has been filed only for recovery of money as mentioned above and not for specific performance. The suit is only a counter-blast to the eviction petition. The suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 24. 2005. He has filed the present Application No.4234 of 2007 to condone the delay of 678 days. The application was said to have been signed by his counsel Mr. S.B. Fazluddin, who denied that the application was filed on 30.3.2007 whereas Mr. S.B. Fazluddin represented before this Court that his signature has been forged and that he has given his vakalat and case bundle back to the applicant even in the year 2002, as seen from his letter given to the Registry on 27. 2007 (Page No.57 of the typed set). Then Mr. P.R. Adikesavan informed that the disputed signature belong to one P. Bhaskaran, a Junior Advocate of Mr. S.B. Fazluddin, which was also denied. Therefore, an order was passed to summon the handwriting expert to the court itself. But the Forensic Sciences Laboratory sent a letter stating that comparing the disputed signatures in the open court is technically not feasible and the relevant documents may be sent to the Laboratory. Mr. P. Bhaskaran, has filed an Affidavit stating that the signature found in Application No.4234 of 2007does not belong to him. Learned counsel for the first defendant also represented that a contempt petition in Crl.P.D.No.31805 of 2007 is also pending against the said Advocate P.R. Adikesavan, a copy of which has also been submitted before the Court. 10. As represented by the learned counsel for the first defendant, this suit seems to be filed as a counter-blast against the RCOP initiated against him by the first defendant. Inspite of an order of eviction, he has been filing petition after petition and abusing the process of law which would show that the applicant is a vexatious litigant who could be dealt with under Tamil Nadu Act No.VIII of 1949 [Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act]. 11. Inspite of an order of eviction, he has been filing petition after petition and abusing the process of law which would show that the applicant is a vexatious litigant who could be dealt with under Tamil Nadu Act No.VIII of 1949 [Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act]. 11. The applicant himself being an Advocate, must be aware of the date on which the suit is posted and the purpose for which the suit is posted. In the affidavit the reason assigned by him is that the counsel on record Mr. S.B. Fazluddin has instructed his clerk to take up follow up action to serve summons to the defendants 2 and 3. But as rightly submitted by the Learned counsel for the first defendant, the counsel on record Mr. S.B. Fazluddin, who earlier appeared for the applicant has sent a letter dated 27. 2007 to the Registry informing that he is not appearing for the applicant and he has returned the bundle to the applicant even as early as 2002 and the applicant is misusing his vakalat. 12. As regards this application is concerned, somebody has signed as counsel for the applicant. Initially, the applicant submitted that it is the signature of Mr. Fazluddin. When Mr. Fazluddin, denied, he changed his version and submitted that the application is signed by one P. Bhaskaran, Junior Counsel of Mr. Fazluddin. However, Mr. P. Bhaskaran, Advocate has also filed an Affidavit denying that he has not signed the application. According to him, though he was appearing for the applicant for some of the cases, as far as the present case is concerned, he is neither a counsel on record, nor Junior Advocate of the applicant. The signature as seen from the affidavit of Mr. P. Bhaskaran can be compared with the signature found in the Application No.4234 of 2007, which are totally different. The applicant is not telling the truth as to who has signed the Master’s Summons of the Application No.4234 of 2007. 13. The signature as seen from the affidavit of Mr. P. Bhaskaran can be compared with the signature found in the Application No.4234 of 2007, which are totally different. The applicant is not telling the truth as to who has signed the Master’s Summons of the Application No.4234 of 2007. 13. The contention of the applicant that law of limitation is not applicable when an application is filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to restore a suit which was dismissed for default is not sustainable in view of Art.122 of the Law of Limitation, which provides that to restore a suit or appeal or application for review or revision dismissed for default of appearance or for want of prosecution or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs, the period prescribed is Thirty days from the date of such dismissal. 14. Learned counsel for the first defendant also produced a copy of the order passed in CRP(NPD) No.3108 of 2007. Wherein My Learned Brother, S.K. Krishnan, J., has observed about the applicant (respondent in the CRP) which reads as follows:- “5. The attitude of the respondent in filing the above said petition and appeals arising out of dismissal of the petitions, is nothing to but drag on the proceedings. The respondent used to file Miscellaneous Petition one or after another and on their dismissal, he used to prefer the appeals and leave the said appeal unattended and when the same were being dismissed, again he used to file petitions for restoration. Thereby, it is stated that the respondent had abused the legal process by filing one application after the other and preferring one appeal and after the other and hampered of the proceedings. After filing the applications, the respondent would allow the same to be dismissed for default after dragging on for some time and again used to file petitions to restore the default orders and again allowed them to be dismissed for default. 6. Even after the ex parte eviction order, dated 23. After filing the applications, the respondent would allow the same to be dismissed for default after dragging on for some time and again used to file petitions to restore the default orders and again allowed them to be dismissed for default. 6. Even after the ex parte eviction order, dated 23. 2003, the respondent filed number of petitions, appeals and revisions, viz., M.P.No.278 of 2003, M.P.478 of 2003, M.P.No.638 of 2003, RCA No.1034 of 2003, M.P.No.607 of 2003, M.P.No.4184 of 2004, M.P.No.5859 of 2004, M.P.No.264 of 2004, Tr.O.P.No.265 of 2004, CRP No.490 of 2005, M.P.No.309 of 2005, M.P.No.846 of 2005, RCA No.1219 of 2005, M.P.No.386 of 2007, M.P.No.299 of 2007, M.P.No.300 of 2007, M.P.No.338 of 2007 and M.P.No.339 of 2007. Thereby, again from the date when the ex parte eviction passed, i.e. on 23. 2003, the respondent has dragged on the eviction proceedings till 28.08.2007 on which date, the petitioner has preferred Eviction Petition in EP SR.No.13887 of 2007. It is to be noted that all the above said petitions and appeals came to be dismissed against the respondent.” 15. Apart from the fact that sufficient reason has not been shown for the condonation of the delay of 678 days in filing the application to restore the suit dismissed for default as against the defendants 2 and 3, it is found that the application itself has been signed by forging somebody’s signature. Under these circumstances, Application No.4234 of 2007 is dismissed and it is open to the defendants to initiate criminal action under law, if they so desire. 16. As regards, Application No.4135 of 2007 is concerned, the reason assigned to condone the delay of 3323 days in this application is that the second and third defendants have already entered appearance through their counsel one Mr. A.M. Loganathan who filed vakalat in June 1996 itself after taking necessary endorsement from the applicant’s counsel and hence there was no necessity to take steps for service once again and the suit has been posted suddenly on 22. 1998 and was dismissed for not taking steps for service of summons on them. The dismissal was only due to the mistake of not furnishing the facts. It is also stated that due to oversight the applicant’s counsel missed to notice the matter listed on 22. 1998 and hence could not appear and bring the facts to the notice of the court. The dismissal was only due to the mistake of not furnishing the facts. It is also stated that due to oversight the applicant’s counsel missed to notice the matter listed on 22. 1998 and hence could not appear and bring the facts to the notice of the court. The delay is very huge and no acceptable reason is forthcoming from the applicant and she has put the blame on the counsel. It is highly ironical to state that the applicant’s husband, who is an advocate, who has filed several petitions and suits and appeals in the name of his wife and son, was not aware of the dismissal of the suit for more than 3000 days. In this application as well, the counsel on record has been mentioned as Mr. S.B. Fazluddin. As stated earlier, the said counsel has already returned the papers even as early as 2002 and still, the applicant, at the instance of her husband, Mr. P.R. Adikesavan, Advocate, filing application after application misusing the vakalat of Mr. S.B. Fazluddin, which is to be highly deprecated. 17. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the first defendant in the suit in C.S.No.336 of 1996 that this suit has been filed by P.A. Udayakumari, wife of Mr. P.R. Adikesavan for specific performance with regard to some valuable property of 10 acres and 84 cents. The counsel for the first defendant informed this court that in the guise of getting several crores of rupees for obtaining a loan from the bank for the purpose of starting an Engineering College, Mr. P.R. Adikesavan wanted a sale agreement which is the basis for the suit in C.S.No.336 of 1996. He has also produced a document signed by the wife of Mr. P.R. Adikesavan by name P.A. Udayakumari, which reads as follows:- “To, V. Veera Reddy, S.o. Veera Reddy, No.5, Thyappa Mudali Line, Madras – 1. Sir, The agreement of sale executed on 5. 1993 between us (Stamp No.3610 and 604) is only for a convenience this price for cent fixed is Rs.1,100/= not as Rs.2000/= as stated in this agreement. I have not paid you the amount of Rs.9,75,600/= (Nine Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand and Six Hundred only). Our agreement dated 14. 1990 alone stands good. This is for your information. I request you not to disclose the same to any third party as promised by you. I have not paid you the amount of Rs.9,75,600/= (Nine Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand and Six Hundred only). Our agreement dated 14. 1990 alone stands good. This is for your information. I request you not to disclose the same to any third party as promised by you. Thanking you, (sigd:/P.A. Udayakumari) (Purchaser)” 18. A reading of the above lines would make it clear that the plaintiff has not paid the sum of Rs.9,75,600/= as alleged in the plaint in C.S.No.336 of 1996. If the above document is proved by the defendants, then there is no merit in the case of the plaintiff and the suit has to dismissed. In Paragraph 9 of the Written Statement filed by the defendants it is contended that the husband of the plaintiff Mr. P.R. Adikesavan with evil and mala fide intention has committed fraudulent action by creating bogus agreements and obtained the signatures of the first defendant only with an intention to grab the properties of the first defendant. Apart from the fact that sufficient reason has not been put forth to condone the huge delay of 3323 days in filing the application to restore the suit which was dismissed for against the defendant 2 and comes that the application itself is a vexatious litigation and deserves to be dismissed with cost. 19. Consequently, Application No.4136 of 2007 to restore the suit C.S.No.336 of 1996 which was dismissed for default as against the respondents/defendants 2 and 3 on 22. 1998 is also dismissed with cost. 20. The views about the character of Mr. P.R. Adikesavan, Advocate, as expressed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan, (as he then was) in C.S.No.761 of 1998 and My Learned Brother Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Krishnan in CRP(NPD)No.3108 of 2007 are fortified by his attitude in these proceedings also. He deserves no indulgence of this court in allowing the condone delay applications. Though a complaint has been filed before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as against Mr. P.R. Adikesavan, it is represented that no action has been taken by the Bar Council which would show that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is in deep slumber. 21. He deserves no indulgence of this court in allowing the condone delay applications. Though a complaint has been filed before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as against Mr. P.R. Adikesavan, it is represented that no action has been taken by the Bar Council which would show that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is in deep slumber. 21. In the result, all the three applications are dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/= in each application, which shall be paid within a period of one month from this date, out of which, Rs.2,500/= in each application to be paid to the counsel for the first defendant and Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited to the Hon’ble Chief Justice Relief Fund.