AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order made in I.A. No. 379 of 2009, whereby the
Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to excuse the delay of 5 years and 5 months in re-submitting the Order 9 Rule 9
CPC application on the ground that cost was not paid within the time as stipulated in the order dated 06.04.2010. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a
suit for specific performance filed in O.S. No. 136/1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The respondent is the defendant in the said suit.
On 17.02.2004 the trial court dismissed the said suit for default due to non-appearance of the petitioner. An application under Order 9 Rule 9
CPC came to be filed on 16.03.2004. The said application was returned by the Office of the Court below for effecting certain compliance.
However the same was not re-presented within the time stipulated therein and on the other hand it was represented after 5 years and 5 months
time. The said delay was sought to be condoned in I.A. No. 379 of 2009. By an order dated 06.04.2010 the Court below allowed the application
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- on or before 26.04.2010. As the cost amount was not paid within the time stipulated the application was
subsequently dismissed by the Court below on 27.04.2010.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner''s counsel appeared in the lower court did not inform him of the
order passed by the Court below and therefore he was not in a position to deposit the cost within the time.
I am unable to appreciate the attitude of the petitioner. When the suit was dismissed for default on 17.02.2004, no doubt the petitioner filed an
application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC within the time, but when the papers were returned by the Office of the Court below, the petitioner took 5
years and 5 months time to represent the same. No doubt the Court below has condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The
petitioner has not seized the said opportunity by paying the cost within time. Again he has committed default by not paying the cost. Therefore the
Court below has got no other go except to dismiss the petition. In my considered view the petitioner having shown no seriousness in conducting the
proceedings all throughout, is not entitled to any indulgence before this court. Further present impugned order came to be passed on 27.04.2010
and the petitioner has taken steps to bring the matter for admission before this Court nearly after 3 years and 3 months. This shows that the
petitioner is only indulging in dilatory tactics. Accordingly, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.