This appeal is filed against the order in I.A.No.179 of 2000 dismissing the suit for default. The suit is filed for declaration of title.
2. The suit was posted for trial on 11.04.2003 on which date, the plaintiff did not appear. Consequently, it was dismissed for default. However, an application for restoration was filed more or less immediately and in the affidavit filed in support of this application the plaintiff has contended that she was sick on the earlier date and therefore sought for restoration of the suit. The trial Court has dismissed this application on the solitary ground that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence such as medical certificate to show that she was sick on that date.
3. There is no other proof that the appellant's attitude towards conduct of prosecution of the suit is otherwise indifferent. In my mind, the trial Court has taken a hyper technical attitude towards a lay-litigant and that too in a suit for declaration of title on movable or immovable property. This Court does not exist to discipline the litigant or to penalize, except when the conduct of a suitor is demonstrated to be one intended to procrastinate of trial. In the absence of any such material, it has to be held that the order dismissing the application for restoration of suit can only be construed as imposing a penalty on a litigant.
4. In conclusion, I allow this appeal and the suit is restored to file. However, the trial Court is instructed to commence the trial forthwith and both the parties are directed to co-operate in conduct of trial and the trial Court shall be miserly in granting adjournments except when it is very imminent. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the case within four months. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.01.2017 kmi To
1. The Additional Sub-Ordinate Court, Pondicherry.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
N.SESHASAYEE, J., kmi C.M.A.No.1317 of 2005 27.01.2017