Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2550 (MAD)

Dhanasekaran v. Kasthuri

2013-07-19

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.86 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. The said suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein for partition. The petitioners and respondents are brothers and sisters. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order made in I.A.No.84 of 2010, whereby the Court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to restore I.A.No.95 of 2009 which came to be dismissed for default on 26.11.2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The suit came to be decreed exparte on 13.12.2005. The petitioners filed I.A.No.33 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 227 days in filing a petition to set aside the said exparte decree. The said I.A. Came to be dismissed for default on 06.06.2007. To restore the said I.A.No.33 of 2007, the petitioners filed another application in I.A.No.468 of 2007 that too with a delay of 10 days. The said application also came to be dismissed on 18.07.2007. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur again with a delay. To condone such delay the petitioners filed I.A.No.95 of 2009. Even that the application was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 26.11.2009 for non-payment of batta to serve notice to the respondents. Hence the petitioners filed another application in I.A.No.84 of 2010 seeking to restore the said I.A.No.95 of 2009. The Court below dismissed the said application in I.A.No.84 of 2009 on merits. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court. 4. From the dates and events narrated above, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have not shown any seriousness in conducting the proceedings before the Court below and on the other hand at every stage they have committed default. The present application filed in I.A.No.84 of 2010 was considered the Court below on merits. It is pointed out by the Court below that the petitioners have not given sufficient reasons for restoring I.A.No.95 of 2009. The present application filed in I.A.No.84 of 2010 was considered the Court below on merits. It is pointed out by the Court below that the petitioners have not given sufficient reasons for restoring I.A.No.95 of 2009. Though they say in their affidavit that they were not well, they have not given any particulars or details about the illness and they have not marked any documents to prove the same. The Court below has noted the said lapse on the part of the petitioners and consequently came to the conclusion that they are only trying to delay the final decree proceedings so that the plaintiffs are not getting any share immediately. I find that the reasons given by the Court below in rejecting the application are just and proper and do not require any interference from this Court. Therefore the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No cost. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.