This civil revision petition is filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the District Munsif, Bhavani, in I.A.No.756 of 2009 in O.S.No. 654 of 2004.
2. The suit has been filed for recovery of money on a pro-note executed on 18.4.1994. The suit was filed in the year 1997 before the Sub Court, Bhavani and after transfer to the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, re-numbered as O.S.No. 654 of 2004 on 20.8.2009. At the time of recording the evidence of the defendant, I.A.No.756 of 2009 has been filed to compare the thumb impression of the defendant in the suit pro-note with the admitted thumb impression. Such application was resisted by the plaintiff/respondent herein stating that the suit is more than 12 years old and the defendant has filed several petitions and the I.A.No. 756 of 2009 is the 4th petition filed by him. His intention is to drag on the proceedings and to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The finding of the Court below is to the effect that the application has been filed by the defendant to prolong the litigation and to evade the adjudication of the suit. However, the Court below shown some indulgence to the revision petitioner/ defendant by allowing the application on condition that the revision petitioner / defendant should deposit the entire principal amount of Rs.55,000/- as per the suit claim on or before 28.8.2009 in order to show his bonafides. On failure to comply with the said conditions, the Court directed that the petition will be dismissed automatically. Aggrieved by the condition imposed, the revision petition has been filed stating that the condition imposed by the trial Court is onerous and the revision petitioner is unable to deposit the principal amount as per the suit claim.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the long delay in adjudication of the suit has cause serious prejudice to the respondent/ plaintiff and the Court below has shown indulgence by directing the revision petitioner to deposit only the principal amount. The intention of the revision petitioner is to delay the adjudication of the suit has been clearly established by his conduct and therefore, no further indulgence can be shown by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner pleaded that the revision petitioner is taking all steps to deposit a portion of the amount and that he is an agriculturist and therefore, he is unable to make arrangements to deposit the amount in time. He seeks further time to comply with the condition. The learned counsel for respondent though objected to the grant of time, he is however agreeable to show some indulgence to test the bonafidies of the revision petitioner. Though under law, the revision petitioner would not be entitled to such indulgence, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Court in equiry is inclined to grant further time till 23.10.2009. If the revision petitioner does not comply with the condition of the court below on or before 23.10.2009, the order passed by the Court below shall stand closed automatically. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible preferable on or before 30.11.2009. The revision petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial without seeking any further adjournment. This civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, MP No. 1 of 2009 is closed. No costs.
09.10.2009 ra Index: No Internet: yes To The District Munsif Court, Bhavani R.SUDHAKAR,J., ra C.R.P.(PD) No.2678 of 2009 09.10.2009