AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raju, J.—The above appeal has been filed against tin order dated 16.11.1979 in I.A. No. 659 of 1978 in O.S. No. 796 of 1974 on the file
of the Sub Court Salem dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiffs under O.9, R.9, C.P.C. The said petition was filed to restore O.S. No. 796 of
1974 which was dismissed for default on 26.6.1978. From the copy of the petition and the orders as well as the printed copy of the order filed, it
could be seen that or 25.10.1979 the counsel for the appellants made an endorsement as follows:- ""May be allowed or some normal terms."" The
counsel for the respondents also made an endorsement that the petition may be allowed on heavy terms. The Court below ordered that the
application will be allowed or payment of costs of Rs. 50/-. by the petitioners to the respondents on or before 15.11.1979 and it has been further
stated in the order that the petition shall stand dismissed on failing to comply with the said condition. Thereafter from 25.10.1979 the matter stood
adjourned to 16.11.1979. Since the cost of Rs. 50/-. was not paid as stipulated, the Court had no other option but to dismiss the petition on
16.11.1979. It is against the said order the above appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the appellants con tended that the default on the part
of the appellants was on account of the fact that they were not informed properly and that the Court below committed an error in having directed
payment of Rs. 50/-. as costs, and more so in making it as a condition for allowing the application filed under O.9, R.9, C.P.C. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the above plea of the appellants. The cost of Rs. 50/-. cannot be
said to by either on the high side or unreasonable and the appellants had not made out any substantial grounds for having committed default in not
prosecuting the suit at the appropriate stage but also in not complying with the reasonable condition imposed by the Court below for restoring the
suit on file. The course adopted by the Count below cannot be said to be unreasonable. The Court below had no other option but to dismiss the
application. The appeal is dismissed. No costs