JUDGEMENT
Abdul Quddhose, J. -
(1.)The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgement and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dharmapuri dated 05.02.2004, in C.M.A. No.19 of 1996 confirming the fair and final order of the learned District Munsif of Dharmapuri dated 15.09.1994 in I.A.No.562 of 1994 in O.S.No.568 of 1988.
(2.)I.A.No.562 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner to restore I.A.No.573 of 1992 in O.S.No.568 of 1988 before the Munsif Court which was filed by the petitioner to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default in the year 199 The earlier I.A.No.573 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner, to restore the suit dismissed for default on the ground that, the petitioner was having stomach upset and due to that reason, he could not be present in Court on the said date, when the matter was called. The earlier I.A.No.573 of 1992 was dismissed by the District Munsif Court for non-prosecution. Thereafter, I.A.No.562 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner to restore the I.A.No.573 of 1992 stating the same reason, what was stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.573 of 199 The District Munsif, Dharmapuri, by his order dated 15.09.1994 had dismissed I.A.No.562 of 1994 on the ground that, no sufficient reason was given by the petitioner for restoring I.A.No.573 of 1992 and further the same reason was given by the petitioner as was given in the affidavit filed in support of the earlier I.A.No.573 of 199 Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.562 of 1994 by the District Munsif, Dharmapuri on 15.09.1994, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.19 of 1996, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. The learned Sub Judge, Dharmapuri by his order dated 05.02004, confirmed the order dated 15.09.1994, passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri. Aggrieved by the said order dated 05.02004 made in C.M.A. No.19 of 1996, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.)Originally the suit in O.S.No.568 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner before the District Munsif, Dharmapuri for declaration against his wife, who is the first defendant and her brothers, who are the second, third and fourth defendants respectively. It is seen that the suit is of the year 1988 and no useful purpose will be served if the suit is restored after a lapse of almost 30 years. The Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the matter both in the suit as well as in the appeal. There is a clear finding that no satisfactory medical certificate was produced to support the medical ailment pleaded in the affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to restore I.A.No.573 of 1992 which was dismissed for default. Due to the negligence of the petitioner, the suit was also dismissed for default earlier. The reason given by the petitioner in the application filed to restore the suit which was dismissed for default and to restore the application seeking for restoration of the application filed to restore the suit which was dismissed for default are one and the same. In respect of both the restoration petitions, no medical certificate was also not produced. Further, the suit is of the year 1988 and it cannot be restored now after a lapse of almost 30 years. This Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.19 of 1996.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.