Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 459 (MAD)

Chinnammal & Others v. K. Palani Ammal & Another

2009-02-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Inveighing upon the order dated 111. 2008, passed by the learned Sub Court, Bhavani, Erode District, in I.A.No.267 of 2008 in O.S.No.47 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Despite printing the name, both parties have not appeared and no representation on their behalf. 3. A resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.47 of 2007 seeking the following relief as against the defendants: Tamil While so, within the time contemplated under the law, written statement was not filed by the revision petitioners 1 to 6/D3 to D7 and D9. Whereupon, they were set exparte and the matter proceeded further and when the suit was at the argument stage, the revision petitioners did choose to file the I.A.No.267 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC seeking to get set aside the exparte order passed against them. The plaintiffs resisted the same, whereupon the lower court dismissed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 4. A bare perusal of the typed set of papers including the grounds of the revision would display and demonstrate, exemplify and indicate that the revision petitioners herein as defendants D3 to D7 and D9 remained quiet without filing written statement within the statutory period of 90 days as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC and at the belated stage, they did choose to file the said application contending that there were some talks of compromise between the plaintiffs and the revision petitioners and due to that alone written statement was not filed. 5. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would amply make the point clear that absolutely there was no shred or shrad, iota or miniscule extent of evidence in support of the contention of the defendants relating to the non filing of the written statement. The affidavit of D7 filed in support of the I.A.No.267 of 2008 ex facie and prima facie would fail to carry conviction with this Court for the reason that no prudent litigant would as averred in the said affidavit refrain from taking note of the Court proceedings and that too after entering appearance. The affidavit of D7 filed in support of the I.A.No.267 of 2008 ex facie and prima facie would fail to carry conviction with this Court for the reason that no prudent litigant would as averred in the said affidavit refrain from taking note of the Court proceedings and that too after entering appearance. It is clear that for a period of more than 3/4th of a year they kept quiet without filing written statement with petition as contemplated under law and allowed grass grow under their feet, in addition to having attracted as against them the maxims Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt -The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights and Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium - It concerns the state that there be an end of law suit. It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation. Despite the revision petitioners having been set exparte as early as on 08.01.2008, they chose to file the said I.A. only on 18.08.2008. As such the lower Court appropriately and appositely dismissed the said application which was filed at the argument stage of the O.S.No.47 of 2007. Hence there is no merit in the revision petition; accordingly, the same is dismissed confirming the order of the lower Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.