Heard Mr.J.Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
2.This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 35 days in presenting Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of the plaint.
3.The revision petitioner has presented a plaint before the District Munsif, Sathankulam, seeking declaration that defendant nos. 8 & 9 are not minority institutions and the schools run by the 8th defendant are not minority institutions and to declare the 8th defendant is not a Society as contemplated under the Society Registrtion Act, 1860 and to declare the bylaw of 8th defendant is not in conformity with the provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860.
4.The Trial Court before taking the plaint on file has returned the same, noting down the defects in the plaint, including the documents relied by the plaintiff in his plaint. In spite of several returns and re- presentations, the vital document namely the alleged registration of the 8th defendant society under the Society Registration Act and the bylaw were not produced by the plaintiff. Since the plaint has been presented by an individual to issue a negative declaration regarding the status of the said institutions, the locus of the plaint has been sought by the lower Court and also the documents referred and relied by the plaintiff in the plaint. Since the relevant documents did not produced by the plaintiff, the Court below has rightly rejected the plaint, holding that the plaintiff has not produced any documents regarding the Societies registration deed relating to this case, even after the returns made by the Court and sufficient time and opportunity given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not properly complied the returns.
5.Aggrieved by the order of rejection of plaint, the present revision petition is preferred with a delay of 35 days. The reasons stated by the petitioner in the condone delay petition is that he instructed his lower Court Advocate to engage an Advocate of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to file the Civil Revision Petition and papers were available in the office of his local advocate. Then the Advocate in the Madurai Bench prepared the revision petition papers and presented it before the Court. But there occurred a short delay in filing the revision petition.
6.There could be no worst affidavit than this, with bereft of details and particulars, without mentioning when the copy was received and when he instructed the counsel. Such a bald averments made in the affidavit are to be deprecated.
7.Hence this Court finds no reason to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the revision petition. Accordingly, CMP(MD)No.9202 of 2016 is dismissed. Consequently CRP(MD)No.SR19104 of 2016 is closed. No costs.
To
1)The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
2)The Secretary to Tamil Nadu Government School Education Department Chennai ? 600 009
3)The Director of School Education College Road Chennai ? 600 006
4)The Director of Elementary Education College Road Chennai ? 600 006
5)The District Collector Thoothukudi District Thoothukudi
6)The District Registrar Society Registration Thoothukudi Thoothukudi District
7)The Chief Educational Officer Thoothukudi ? 628 002
8)The District Educational Officer Thoothukudi ? 628 002.