The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 22.01.2009, passed in I.A.No.83 of 2008 in O.S.No.141 of 2004, on the file of the Fast Track Court / Additional District Court, Dindigul.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.141 of 2004, on the file of the Fast Track Court / Additional District Court, Dindigul. The said suit has been laid for the relief of specific performance, against the respondent / defendant. The abovesaid suit has been seriously contested by the respondent by filing a written statement. It is found that the suit laid by the revision petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.08.2004. Seeking to restore the same, the revision petitioner has come forward with an application and inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 196 days in preferring the said application, to condone the abovesaid delay, the revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.83 of 2008. According to the revision petitioner, only on the respondent proclaiming that the suit laid by him had been dismissed in the Town, he came to know about the transfer of his suit from Palani Court to Dindigul District Court and that the same had come to be dismissed for default on 10.08.2004 and furthermore, inasmuch as the revision petitioner had been suffering from high blood pressure and as his Doctor advised him not to travel, he was unable to contact his counsel and therefore, prevented http://www.judis.nic.in 3 from filing the application to restore the suit in time and thereby, the delay had occurred and hence, sought for the condonation of the delay.
3. The abovesaid case of the revision petitioner has been resisted by the respondent by contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and stated that the revision petitioner has not preferred the suit properly at the inception and accordingly, to rectify the defects, his plaint had been returned and thereafter, with a delay of 687 days in re-presenting the plaint, the revision petitioner has come forward with an application and the application being entertained, the suit was taken on file by the Palani Sub Court in O.S.No.158 of 1998 and furthermore, thereafter, even after several adjournments, inasmuch as the revision petitioner had not been ready to prosecute the case diligently, his suit had come to be dismissed on 18.09.2001 and to restore the suit, the revision petitioner came forward with an application with delay and the said application had been entertained and on the point of jurisdiction, the suit had been transferred to Dindigul District Court and there also, the revision petitioner had not evinced interest to enter appearance and subsequently, his suit had been dismissed for default on 23.08.2004 and even thereafter, the revision petitioner had not endeavoured to restore the suit in time and had come forward with the application with a delay of 196 days and only to drag on the proceedings endlessly and cause http://www.judis.nic.in 4 hardship to the respondent, the revision petitioner has not been prosecuting the suit diligently and also stated that the revision petitioner has also laid another suit against the respondent, in O.S.No.1092 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, for permanent injunction and the said suit had also been dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, the application is devoid of merits and hence, liable to be dismissed.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions putforth by the respective parties, finding the revision petitioner has not placed sufficient cause and not established the same with convincing material, dismissed the application preferred by the revision petitioner for the condonation of the delay. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
5. The revision petitioner has laid the suit for specific performance in the year 1995, on the file of the Palani Sub Court and as could be seen from the materials placed on record, inasmuch as the revision petitioner has not presented the plaint with necessary Court fees and requisite documents, his plaint papers having been returned and thereafter, with delay, the revision petitioner had re-presented the papers and finally, the suit laid by the revision petitioner had been taken on file in O.S.No.158 of 1998. Thereafter, the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 abovesaid suit was listed for trial on several occasions and inasmuch as, the revision petitioner had not been ready to prosecute his case diligently, his suit had come to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.09.2001. Subsequently, the order of dismissal was set aside on the application preferred by the revision petitioner belatedly. It is further noted that on the point of jurisdiction, the suit of the revision petitioner had come to be transferred to the Dindigul Court and even in Dindigul District Court, despite the matter being listed for trial on various occasions, the revision petitioner had not proceeded with the matter carefully and finally, the suit had come to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.08.2004. Furthermore, to restore the suit, even with reference to the same, the revision petitioner has not taken appropriate steps and thereby, the delay of 196 days having occurred, to condone the same, the present application has been preferred. Now, according to the revision petitioner, on account of high blood pressure, he was unable to contact his counsel as he was advised not to travel and thereby, the delay had occurred. However, when the abovesaid cause projected by the revision petitioner is seriously repudiated by the respondent, despite the same, the revision petitioner has not placed any acceptable material and proof for condoning the huge and inordinate delay. No doubt, as could be seen from the records available, the Doctor Certificate is found to have been projected by the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the Doctor Certificate, it is seen http://www.judis.nic.in 6 that the revision petitioner had been taking treatment only for a period of 18 days from 12.03.2005 to 30.03.2005 and he was discharged on 30.03.2005. Therefore, to say that the revision petitioner had been suffering from high blood pressure over a long period of time and thereby, unable to contact his counsel and consequently, not in a position to know the hearing dates of his suit, as such, cannot be readily accepted. Therefore, the Doctor Certificate projected by the revision petitioner would not in any manner advance the case for condoning the delay of 196 days and as could be seen from the conduct of the revision petitioner in the prosecution of the suit from the inception, as noted by the Court below and also as could be gathered from the available records, right from the inception, the revision petitioner has not proceeded with the suit diligently and carefully and even had taken more than three years period for numbering the suit and already left the suit to go for dismissal earlier and thereafter also, not endeavoured to proceed with the prosecution of the suit carefully and left the matter to go for dismissal. This attitude of the revision petitioner would only go to show that he is not willing to go ahead with his case on merits and his intention seems to only delay the proceedings one way or the other so as to ensure that the suit should not reach its logical conclusion and thereby, to cause serious and irreparable loss and hardship to the respondent. Furthermore, as found by the Court below, as could be seen from the available records, even the present application has http://www.judis.nic.in 7 not been prosecuted by the revision petitioner diligently and thereby, the delay of 1211 days had occurred in the re-presentation of the papers and only thereafter, the application had been taken on file. Therefore, in all, it is found that the revision petitioner is not for the disposal of the suit on merits and he wants to keep the suit alive one way or the other to ensure that the respondent is unable to deal with the suit property in the manner known to law and in such view of the matter, it is found that the Court below on rightly noting that the revision petitioner has not projected sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay and also not substantiated the same with convincing materials and the conduct of the revision petitioner is found to be only to delay the proceedings endlessly, as above discussed, in all, I do not find any reason worth acceptance to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below.
6. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs..