1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.607 of 2011 1. Irudhayam 2. Arockiammal 3. Nixon Ignatius Xavier 4. Bin Christian Mary 5. John Kasper 6. Regina Mary .. Petitioners/Defendants Vs. Mathalai Mary .. Respondent/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 06.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009 in Original Suit No.417 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Manaparai. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondent : Mr.R.R.Kannan ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 06.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009 in Original Suit No.417 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Manaparai. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.417 of 2004 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants. In Original Suit No.417 of 2004, an ex-parte decree has been passed on 26.08.2004 and in filing a petition for setting aside the same, there is a delay of 1654 days and in order to condone the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court below after considering all the contentions putforth on either side has dismissed Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners/defendants as revision petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that Original Suit No.417 of 2004 has been instituted by the respondent as plaintiff for getting a relief of perpetual injunction, wherein summonses have been issued to the petitioners and at the time of receipt of summonses, the first petitioner/first defendant has suffered from jaundice and due to that the revision petitioners have not been able to attend the Court and since the revision petitioners have failed to attend the Court, an ex-parte decree has been passed on 26.08.2004 and in filing a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, there is a delay of 1654 days and in order to condone the same, the present petition has been filed, but the Court below without considering the reason given in the petition has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has contended that in Original Suit No.417 of 2004, ex-parte decree has been passed on 26.08.2004 and the present petition has been filed by the first defendant stating that he suffered from jaundice at the time of receipt of summonses and in Original Suit No.417 of 2004, totally six defendants are available and they have not taken proper steps so as to make appearance in Original Suit No.417 of 2004 and further the first petitioner/first defendant has not taken any steps so as to prove the reason given in the petition and the Court below after considering all the infirmities found on the side of the petitioners has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009 and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. 5. It is an admitted fact that in Original Suit No.417 of 2004, an ex-parte decree has been passed on 26.08.2004. In Original Suit No.417 of 2004, totally six defendants are available. The affidavit in the present petition has been filed only by the first defendant, wherein it has been simply stated that at the time of receipt of summonses, he suffered from jaundice and to that effect he has not adduced any oral evidence in Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009. If really, the first petitioner has suffered from jaundice at the time of receipt of summonses, no explanation has been given with regard to the remaining defendants. Therefore it goes without saying that the revision petitioners have completely adopted lethargic as well as spasmodic approach in prosecuting Original Suit No.417 of 2004. The present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore it is the duty of the petitioners to prove sufficient cause for the delay mentioned therein. In the instant case, as stated earlier, absolutely there is no evidence so as to accept the reason mentioned in the petition. Since there is no evidence on the side of the revision petitioners/ petitioners to accept the reason mentioned in the petition, it is needless to say that the present petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1097 of 2009 in Original Suit No.417 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Manaparai is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Manapparai. +1 CC to Mr.R.R.Kannan, Advocate (SR.No.37658) C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.607 of 2011 01.11.2011 smn NSV/11.11.11/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/