AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The present Civil Revision Petition is filled challenging the order of the Court below in dismissing the application
filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 755 days in filing the appeal before the Court below. The petitioners herein as
plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 279 of 2008 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for the relief of declaration and for consequential
injunction. In the said suit, the defendants filed I.A. No. 11240 of 2009 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. The said application was
allowed as the plaintiffs did not appear before the Court and represent the matter on the said day. Aggrieved against the said order passed, the
petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, however, with a delay of 755 days. They also filed an application u/s 5 of
the Limitation Act seeking to condone the said delay in preferring the above appeal. The petitioners filed an affidavit in support of the said
application and stated that the 4th petitioner is the power agent of petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and he was conducting the proceedings on behalf of
other plaintiffs. It is further stated by them that the 4th petitioner fell ill due to typhoid for some time and therefore he could not contact his previous
counsel, who was engaged by him to conduct the case. As he was advised by the Doctor to take rest, he could be able to contact his counsel only
in the first week of April 2011 and thereafter they applied for the certified copy of the order passed in I.A. No. 11240 of 2009 dated 29.10.2009.
Thus, there occurred a delay of 755 days in filing the above appeal. The Court below has rejected the said contention by holding that the
petitioners have not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 755 days. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is
filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have not filed any proof before the Court below in support of
their contention, they may be permitted to do so now. I am unable to accept the said request made by the learned counsel. In this case, the appeal
came to be filed with a delay of 755 days. The illness of the 4th petitioner was stated as a reason for filing the appeal with such delay. It is stated
by the petitioners that the 4th petitioner fell ill due to typhoid and also with liver problem. Absolutely no supporting document viz., the medical
certificate has been filed by the petitioners before the court below to prove such contention. The petitioners have not examined anybody orally,
except by filing an affidavit in support of the application. Needless to say that mere filing an affidavit is not sufficient unless the contents of the said
affidavit are proved before the court by adducing material evidence. The court below has rightly rejected the application by holding that the
petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 755 days. Such an order made by the Court below by exercising its
discretion, need not be interfered with in the Civil Revision Petition, in the absence of any other contra material evidence or materials placed before
the Court below. Thus, I find that there are no merits in the Civil Revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.