1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2051 of 2011 1.Meenakshi 2.Subbaiah (Petitioners 1 and 2 are represented by their power agent, Pichammal) .. Petitioners Vs. 1.Valliammal 2.Dhanushkhodi .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.213 of 2010 in unregistered Appeal Suit No.- of 2010 by the Sub Court, Tuticorin. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondents : No appearance ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 28.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.213 of 2010 in Appeal Suit No.- of 2010 by the Sub Court, Tuticorin. 2. The revision petitioners herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. The trial Court has dismissed the suit filed in Original Suit No.292 of 2007. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an attempt has been made so as to prefer appeal with a delay of 340 days and in order to condone the same, the present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Interlocutory Application No.213 of 2010. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners/ appellants as revision petitioners. 3. Even though the respondents have been served with the summonses, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that Original Suit No.292 of 2007 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein enormous documents have been filed so as to prove the alleged title of the plaintiffs to the suit property, but the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the same and against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioners have decided to prefer appeal with a delay of 340 days and the power agent of the revision petitioners has suffered from jaundice and due to that the delay mentioned in the petition has occurred and in order to condone the same, the present petition has been filed, but the Court below https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5. For considering the submissions made on the side of the revision petitioners, the Court has to look into the affidavit filed in Interlocutory Application No.213 of 2010, wherein in paragraph No.3, it has been specifically stated that the concerned counsel has sent a letter stating that certified copies of Judgment and decree are ready on 01.04.2009 and the same has not been received by the petitioner. In paragraph No.4, it has been clearly stated that from April, 2009, the power agent of the petitioners has suffered from jaundice. 6. The present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay of 340 days. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed so as to condone the delay of 340 days, the entire burden lies upon the petitioners to prove that there is sufficient reason for not filing the appeal in time. 7. It has already been pointed out that two reasons have been assigned for condoning the delay mentioned in the petition. The first and foremost reason is that the letter addressed to the power agent of the revision petitioners has not reached her. The second reason is that from April, 2009, the said power agent has suffered from jaundice. But the said aspects have to be proved by the power agent of the revision petitioners by way of adducing both oral and documentary evidence, so that the respondents have an opportunity to cross-examine her. In the instant case, even though two reasons have been stated in the petition, the power agent of the revision petitioners has not chosen to give any oral evidence. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein the reasons must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court and also considering that the power agent of the revision petitioners has not chosen to give any oral evidence, it is needless to say that the reasons given in the present petition have not at all been proved. Since the reasons given in the present petition have not at all been proved by the revision petitioners, the dismissal order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.213 of 2010 in Appeal Suit No.- of 2010 by the Sub Court, Tuticorin is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. +1 CC to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, SR.No.42555 smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2051 of 2011 TR : 16.12.2011 : 2p/3c 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/