AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides. Admit.
This revision petition has been directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 1490 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1683 of 1988, an application filed u/s 5
of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 33 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The learned trial Judge had dismissed the
said application on the ground that the suit is of the year 1988 and the defendants have failed to proceed with the suit and only drag on the
proceedings, the application has been filed, without going into the merits of the application. In the affidavit to the application the reasoning stated
for the delay by the petitioner was that on the date of hearing of the suit ie., 16.2.1988 his brother who was ailing from heart disease died. This fact
was failed to be taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge while dismissing the application. Under such circumstances, I am of the view
that an opportunity must be given to the defendants to defend the suit wherein they have already filed their written statement.
In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed on condition the petitioners pay a cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only to the other side
on or before 9.4.2009 failing which this revision shall deem to have been dismissed. On compliance of this order, the learned trial Judge shall
proceed with O.S. No. 1683 of 1988 and dispose of the same after giving opportunity to both parties, within a period of two months thereafter in
accordance with law. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.