Inveighing the order dated 22.8.2008 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2007 in O.S.No.16 of 2006 by the District Munsif, Udhagamandalam, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite the name of the respondent's counsel having been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance for the respondent.
3. A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.15 of 2006 before the District Munsif, Uthagamandalam, seeking the following relief:-
"to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants their subordinates, their men, agents, or anybody claiming through them from in any way interfering and causing any damages to the super structure of the suit schedule property either by way of demolishing the same or otherwise."
It appears the respondent/defendant did not file written statement. Whereupon ex-parte judgement and decree emerged. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.119 of 2007 to get the delay of 132 days condoned in filing the application to get set aside the ex-parte judgement and decree. Whereupon counter was filed by the revision petitioner. However, the lower Court allowed the said I.A., condoning the delay of 132 days in filing the application to get the ex-parte decree and judgement set aside. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds.
4. Perused the records.
5. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and display that the lower Court thought it fit to condone the delay of 132 days taking into consideration the averments in the affidavit filed by the Junior Assistant of Ootacamund Municipality. Undoubtedly, written statement should be filed, at the most, within 90 days, as per Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. But in this case, it was not done so. With the result, ex-parte order came to be passed.
6. The point as put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff that each and every days' delay should be explained should not be applied in a draconian manner. The facts and circumstances of each and every case should be considered.
7. Here the suit was filed by the revision petitioner as against the Municipality, which has got obviously multifarious duties. So far as this case is concerned, the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A. would reveal that the staff working in the Municipality were shifted from one Section to another Section due to election. The lower Court accepting the factual position, as found displayed and demonstrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Municipality, condoned the delay of 132 days, which warrants no interference. I could see no patent illegality or impropriety on the part of the lower Court in condoning the delay of 132 days, which cannot be described as enormous or inordinate one. The public bodies do have their own difficulties and in this case, the defendant-Municipality had its difficulty in view of transfer of staff from one Section to another Section due to election. Hence, in these circumstances, I could see no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Msk To The District Munsif, Udhagamandalam