This Civil Revision Petition is filed with a delay of 107 days as against the dismissal of Section 5 application. The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for the delay in filing the revision petition is that the copy application for the fair and decreetal order was filed on 04.07.2016 and the certified copy was made ready on 29.07.2016.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that when the learned counsel for the plaintiff indicated about the receipt of the fair and decreetal order through post, the petitioner did not receive the letter sent by his counsel and only after personal enquiry with the learned counsel in the month of December, the petitioner was able to receive the papers from the learned counsel. Thereafter, since the petitioner was not able to mobilise fund immediately, he could not file the revision petition in ti me and therefore there is a delay of 107 days, which is neither wilful nor wanton.
3.Though this request may appear to be very nacus nocuous, but on perusal of the application and the impugned order, it appears that this revision petitioner filed a suit for bare injunction against the respondent in O.S.No.217 of 2007, wherein the respondent had filed counter on 19.02.2008. When the matter was taken up for trial, the revision petitioner was not present and hence the suit was dismissed for default on 02.11.2009.
4. To restore the said suit, the revision petitioner has filed an application under Section 5, to condone the delay of 2098 days. This has not been considered by the Trial Court and has dismissed on the ground that the revision petitioner, who has been represented through the power agent by name, Muniyandi, who was suffering from heart ailment from the year 2013 and prior to that his son died on 10.07.2012, that cannot be a reason for not taking appropriate steps within stipulated time to restore the suit, which was dismissed on 02.11.2009, long before the events stated by the revision petitioner. Further, the Trial Court has also pointed out that the actual owner Parvathy has authorised her power agent to represent her case and all these ailments and other needs as only to the power agent not to the owner, but she could be vigilant and she should have taken appropriate steps at the earliest point of time, failing which there is no reason to condone the delay of 2098 days and restore the suit. Very same logic applies to this application also, though Court need not take a pedantic view while condoning delay without any reasonable cause as sufficient and as pointed out by the revision petitioner. Even the respondent who was put into notice was not appeared in person or through counsel, it is the spirit of justice which has to be taken note of in this case. The revision petitioner though has initiated the Suit in the year 2007 alleging that her neighbour has trying to encroach upon the land has not shown any interest pursuant to the suit and allowed the suit to dismissed for default. After nearly 7 years, the application has been filed without any sufficient cause and the same has been rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. Even thereafter the revision petitioner has not taken any diligent steps to approach the Court in time. The reasons stated by her, that since the communication of her counsel did not reach her, she was not able to mobilise money immediately to approach the Court, are not convincing to entertain this revision petition. Hence this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
.