Challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin in I.A.No.497 of 2006 in O.S.No.143 of 2004, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
2.The petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Originally the suit was filed before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin as O.S.No.320 of 2001 and thereafter it was transferred to the file of Srivaikundam Munsif Court and re-numbered as O.S.No.76 of 2002 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, during the course of trial, the suit was returned by the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam to be presented before the Sub Court, Tuticorin for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was taken on file by the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin in O.S.No.143 of 2004.
3.Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs 1st plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and on the side of defendants 2nd defendant examined herself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. The revision petitioner/2nd defendant also cross examined P.W.1. The revision petitioner/2nd defendant did not contest the case later on. Therefore, the trial Court pronounced the judgment on 02.12.2004.
4.The grievance of the revision petitioner is that she was set exparte because she was held up at Rameshwaram as she was very sick and bed-ridden. Hence, the preliminary decree has to be set aside.
5.The ground of illness can be proved in the manner known to law. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner was bed- ridden for 226 days. Though the learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was taking treatment, but he is not able to narrate the decease and the person who gave treatment. There is no evidence to shown that the petitioner was ill for 226 days. Having taken actively participated in the trial and later-on allowed the suit to be disposed of on merits, the petitioner has come up with the petition to set aside the preliminary decree. It is an abuse of process of law. The trial Court has decreed the suit on merit. The petitioner also failed to prove the illness. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Court below. There is no merit in the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
sj To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.