Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court-IV, Coimbatore at Tirupur, in I.A.Nos.1296 of 2010 and 1297 of 2010 in O.S.No.422 of 2005 these civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 4. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: Sivabaggiammal (since died), Amirthagowri and Rajesware filed the suit O.S.No.422 of 2005 as against the defendants seeking the following reliefs: "To pass a decree and judgment as follow: a. By dividing the suit item 1 to 10 properties into two equal shares between the plaintiffs and the defendant, with respect to the good and bad condition of the land and building and allot one such share to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs be put in separate possession and enjoyment of such one share. (a.a.) Declaring that the alleged release deed dated 10.9.1986 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is sham and nominal, null and void and unenforceable under law. b. Awarding the costs of this suit payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs." (extracted as such) (ii) Written statement was also filed by the defendants. (iii) In the meanwhile, I.A.No.1024 of 2010 was filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. After the suit O.S.No.422 of 2005 was dismissed for default on 22.9.2010 and consequently, the said I.A.No.1024 of 2010 also was dismissed. (iv) Subsequently, I.A.Nos.1296 of 2010 and 1297 were filed, so as to get restored the said I.A.No.1024 of 2010 and the suit O.S.No.422 of 2005. The lower Court dismissed both the I.As. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal have been focussed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision as well as the appeal, would contend that the lower Court failed to give due opportunity to the plaintiffs to proceed with the partition suit. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision as well as the appeal, would contend that the lower Court failed to give due opportunity to the plaintiffs to proceed with the partition suit. 7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently oppose the civil revision petition as well as the civil miscellaneous appeal on the main ground that the plaintiffs instead of proceeding with the suit, indulged in dilly dallying activities, allowing the lower Court to take strict view of the matter and to dismiss the applications, warranting no interference in the CRP as well as in the C.M.A. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality in the orders passed by the lower Court in dismissing both the I.As? 9. At the outset itself I would like to highlight the fact that the suit is one for partition, which is obviously between close relatives. Undoubtedly, the plaintiffs in the litigative process are expected to be diligent, but in this case, it appears there was in action on the part of the plaintiffs in pursuing the matter, whereupon alone the lower Court passed the order. 10. As highlighted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, there was one other suit filed by the same plaintiffs to get set aside the earlier compromise decree relating to the same property and that the plaintiffs want that suit also clubbed along with O.S.No.422 of 2005 and a joint trial to be conducted and to that effect they filed Transfer O.P. also and because of that there was some communication gap between the plaintiffs and their advocate and that resulted in the dismissal of the suit. 11. I am of the view that a lenient view could be taken, as the suit happened to be one for partition, and the facts are somewhat complicated in view of the previous compromise decree. Hence, in these circumstances I would like to set aside the orders passed in both the applications, however, subject to payment of a cumulative cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants relating to both I.As., within 15 days from this date and accordingly it is ordered. On such compliance, the lower Court shall do well to see that the suits are disposed of within six months thereafter. 12. On such compliance, the lower Court shall do well to see that the suits are disposed of within six months thereafter. 12. In the result, both the civil revision petition and the civil miscellaneous appeal are disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.