1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (NPD)No.17 of 2011 M.Chithambaram ..Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. R.Krishnan .. Respondent/Respondent/Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 11.01.2007 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1445 of 2004 in Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 by the District Munsif Court, Palani, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Venkatachamy For Respondent : Mr.Mr.R.Srinivasan, for Mr.R.Nandakumar ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 11.01.2007 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1445 of 2004 in Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 by the District Munsif Court, Palani. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 on the file of the Court below for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the respondent herein has been shown as sole defendant. On 19.11.2003, Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 has been dismissed for default and in filing a petition for setting aside the dismissal order, there is a delay of 284 days and in order to condone the same, the present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that during the relevant period the revision petitioner has suffered from illness and due to that the counsel of the revision petitioner has reported no instructions and under the said circumstances Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 has been dismissed for default on 19.11.2003 and the Court below without considering the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 has already been dismissed for default on 22.08.2002 and subsequently a petition has been filed so as to set aside the dismissal order and the same has been allowed and thereafter Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 has been taken on file and once again the same has been posted on 19.11.2003 for conducting trial and on that day also the revision petitioner has failed to make his appearance and further his counsel has reported no instructions and the Court below after considering the entire conduct of the revision petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 rightly dismissed the present petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below does not require any interference. 5. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 has been instituted for the relief of perpetual injunction wherein the respondent herein has been shown as defendant. It is also equally an admitted fact that on 22.08.2002, Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 has been dismissed for default and subsequently the same has been taken on file on the basis of the petition filed on the side of the revision petitioner and thereafter the same has been posted for trial on 19.11.2003 and on that day the revision petitioner has failed to make his appearance and his counsel has reported no instructions. 6. The present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 284 days in filing a petition for setting aside the dismissal order dated 19.11.2003. The only contention mentioned in the petition is that due to illness of the revision petitioner, he has not been able to make his appearance on 19.11.2003. In fact this Court has perused the entire order passed by the Court below and ultimately found that the revision petitioner has not chosen to give oral evidence so as to substantiate the reason given in the petition. Therefore it shows the lethargic and spasmodic approach on the part of the revision petitioner in prosecuting Original Suit No.1092 of 1996. Since the revision petitioner has adopted desultory conduct in prosecuting Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 and since the present petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay of 284 days and since the revision petitioner has not chosen to give even oral evidence to substantiate the reason given in the petition, it is needless to say that the present petition is liable to be thrown out. 7. The Court below after considering the conduct of the revision petitioner has rightly dismissed the petition. 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 dismissal. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1445 of 2004 in Original Suit No.1092 of 1996 by the District Munsif Court, Palani is confirmed. SD ASST REGISTRAR (CRL SIDE) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR smn To:: The District Munsif, Palani. COPY TO: THE SECTION OFFICER, VR SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 1CC TO MR. R. NANDAKUMAR, ADVOCATE,S R: 1048: DM:2011:JAN:22: C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.17 of 2011 10.01.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/