This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, made in I.A No.338 of 2016 in I.A No.347 of 2014 in O.S No.33 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur, dated 04.10.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.The petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit O.S No.33 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge, Karur, against the respondent/defendant for specific performance. The said suit was posted on 15.10.2014 for trial and on that day, due to non appearance of the petitioner, the suit was dismissed for default. The petitioner filed I.A No.347 of 2014 to restore the suit, which was posted for enquiry on 03.08.2016 and due to the absence of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said petition was dismissed for default. Against which, the petitioner filed I.A.No.338 of 2016 to condone the delay of 26 days in filing an application to restore I.A No.347 of 2014. The said application was dismissed on 04.10.2017. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner is before this court with this civil revision.
3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff argued that I.A No.347 of 2014 to restore the suit was posted to 03.08.2016 for enquiry and since the counsel for the petitioner was not present, it was unable for the petitioner to present the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 argument in the interlocutory application and hence, the petition was dismissed for default and she know the dismissal order of I.A No.344 of 2017 only two days before filing this petition and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and prays that the civil revision petition has to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant argued that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in order grab the property from the respondent and she knew that she could not succeed in the suit and therefore, she wants to keep the suit alive and the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the written statement was filed in January 2012 and the suit was posted in July 2012 for trial and the petitioner was not ready to prosecute the suit and therefore, it was dismissed on 19.03.2014 and the petitioner filed I.A No.100 of 2014 to restore the suit and the application was allowed on terms and the suit was again posted on 15.10.2014 for trial and the petitioner allowed the suit to be dismissed for default and the petitioner did not prosecute I.A No. 347 of 2014, which was filed to restore the suit and allowed it to be dismissed on 03.08.2016 and now the petitioner has chosen to file the application supported by false reasons ad the petitioner has not http://www.judis.nic.in 4 given acceptable reasons for the delay and prays that the civil revision petitioner has to be dismissed.
6.At first, the suit was dismissed for default on 19.03.2014 and it was restored. Then again the suit was posted to 15.10.2014 and the suit was dismissed for default. The petitioner filed I.A No. 347 of 2014 to restore the suit and the suit was dismissed on 03.08.2016. The contention of the petitioner is that on 03.08.2016 when I.A No.340 of 2014 was posted for enquiry, on that date, her counsel did not present and it is understand for her to make submission since she had no legal request and the petition was dismissed for default.
7.The contention of the respondent is that the plaintiff has to ascertain the stage of the petition on 03.08.2016 or on the subsequent dates and hence, it shows that there was no diligence on her part and prays that the civil revision may be dismissed.
8.It is admitted on the side of the respondent that on 03.08.2016, the counsel for the petitioner was not present before the court. Since the petitioner had no legal knowledge, she was http://www.judis.nic.in 5 unable to argue before the court. The petition was dismissed for default. Hence, the reasons stated by the petitioner is acceptable ad it may be allowed on payment of costs.
9.In view of that, this civil revision is allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial court, dated 04.10.2017, in I.A.No.338 of 2016 in I.A No.347 of 2014 in O.S No.33 of 2011 on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Post the matter after four weeks for reporting compliance.