The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 30.01.2009, passed in I.A.No.23 of 2008 in unnumbered A.S.No......of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin.
2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.281 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. The said suit had been levied by the revision petitioners for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession.
3. The abovesaid suit had been stoutly resisted by the respondents / defendants, on various grounds and accordingly, based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit laid by the revision petitioners. Aggrieved over the same, it is found that the revision petitioners had preferred the first appeal. Inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 196 days in preferring http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the appeal, to condone the same, the application in I.A.No.23 of 2008 had been preferred by the revision petitioners.
4. According to the revision petitioners, in brief, for the purpose of preferring the first appeal against the dismissal of their suit, they had applied for the Judgment and Decree in the Lower Court, which were made ready on 12.06.2006 and further stated that as both were suffering from chukunkunia fever one by one, they were unable to contact their counsel and prefer the appeal in time and hence, only after getting fully recovered, they were able to prefer the appeal and thereby, the delay of 196 days had occurred in preferring the appeal and accordingly, prayed for the condonation of the delay.
5. The abovesaid application of the revision petitioners had been resisted by the second respondent contending that the allegations putforth by the revision petitioners that on account of chukunkunia fever suffered by them, they were unable to contact their counsel and thereby, the delay had occurred in preferring the appeal, are all false and putforth only for the purpose of the application. The revision petitioners had not come forward with the nature of the fever suffered by them, the period of treatment, from whom they had taken treatment and when they had contacted their counsel etc., and therefore, based on the bare averments, the revision petitioners' http://www.judis.nic.in 4 application for the condonation of the delay is not to be entertained and also contended that despite the death of the third respondent, even before the preference of the first appeal, they had not taken any steps to implead the legal representatives and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6. The abovesaid application of the revision petitioners had been dismissed by the Court below. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of their suit, the revision petitioners preferred the first appeal. However, as there occurred a delay of 196 days in preferring the appeal, the revision petitioners had come forward with I.A.No.23 of 2008 for the condonation of the delay. For the condonation of the delay, the reasons given by the revision petitioners are that they had been suffering from chukunkunia fever one by one and thereby, unable to contact their counsel and only after getting recovered, they contacted their counsel and thereby, the delay occurred. The abovesaid reasons projected by the revision petitioners for the condonation of the delay are being seriously contested by the second respondent and putforth the case that the reasons projected are false and made only for the purpose of the application.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8. As rightly putforth and determined by the Court below, the revision petitioners have not come forward with a clear case as to when they had become sick, the period of illness, from whom and where they had been taking treatment in connection with the same, when they had recovered, when they had met their Advocate and thereafter, what steps had been taken by them to prefer the appeal, with reference to the abovesaid factors, nothing has been clearly and vividly putforth in the application putforth by them. On the other hand, very barely, without giving any details whatsoever, the revision petitioners have pleaded that on account of their illness, the delay had occurred, however, when the abovesaid cause projected by the revision petitioners is being seriously challenged by the contesting respondent, as rightly determined by the Court below, the revision petitioner should have endeavoured to place necessary materials and proof, at least prima facie, to substantiate their alleged cause. However, when with reference to the same, the revision petitioners neither endeavoured to examine themselves nor placed any materials worth acceptance for the consideration of the Court as regards the delay, the Court below is fully justified in negativing the application preferred by the revision petitioners. That apart, the revision petitioners have also not controverted the plea of the contesting respondent that the third respondent had died even before the preference of the first appeal and despite the same, the revision petitioners are found to have not taken any steps to http://www.judis.nic.in 6 implead the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent in the appeal preferred by them as per law. In such view of the matter, it is seen that the revision petitioners have not even preferred the application by impleading all the parties and also as abovenoted, not come forward with the reasons clearly and failed to substantiate the same with acceptable proof, despite the serious resistance putforth to their case and accordingly, no infirmity is noted in the impugned order of the Court below in dismissing the application of the condonation of the delay.
9. However, in this civil revision petition, none appeared on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and only the fourth respondent had entered appearance through his counsel. However, the said counsel had not made any submissions and left it to the discretion of the Court in considering the case. In addition to that, it is seen that the civil revision petition had already been dismissed as against the respondents 3 and 5, on the failure of the revision petitioners to implead the legal representatives of the abovesaid deceased parties. Therefore, when it is seen that even in this civil revision petition, the revision petitioners had not endeavoured to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondents in the manner known to law and as abovenoted, had not even endeavoured to implead the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent in the application preferred by them in the Lower Court, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 when it is found that already, the civil revision petition laid by the revision petitioners had come to be dismissed as against the respondents 3 and 5, in such view of the matter, when the revision petitioners seeking the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession from all the respondents in the suit, on the abovesaid factors also, it is found that the revision petitioners' case cannot be countenanced legally and merely because the counsel appearing for the fourth respondent had not seriously contested the case of the revision petitioners as abovenoted, that would not by itself entitle the revision petitioners to pray for the acceptance of their case, particularly, as above discussed, they had failed to substantiate their cause putforth for the condonation of the huge and inordinate delay and also not endeavoured to proceed with their application against all the respondents by impleading the legal representatives concerned in the manner known to law and accordingly, it is found that the revision petitioners are not serious in the prosecution of their application as per law.
10. For the reasons aforestated, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.