AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 19.11.2007 made in IA. No. 42/2007 in the unnumbered AS. No. Of 2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Virudhunagar.
The court below refused to condone the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal on the ground that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The petitioners have filed the suit in OS. No. 178/2005 for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending the suit, the respondent filed an application in IA. No. 964/2004 to reject the plaint and the same was allowed by order dated 31.10.2006 by the learned District Munsif, Virudhunagar.
According to the petitioners, they were advised to file a revision against the order of rejection of the plaint before this Court and accordingly, they had filed revision before this Court and the same was returned by the Registry of this Court questioning the maintainability on the ground that the order was appealable. It is submitted that only thereafter, they filed the appeal before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar which had resulted in the delay of 119 days.
The order had been passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint on 31.10.2006 an the copy application had been filed on 6.11.2006 and copies were made ready on 8.2.2007. The revision had been filed on 16.4.2007 and the same has been returned by the Registry of this Court on 12.7.2007, which is disclosed from the returned papers by the Registry of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the appeal, but with a delay of 119 days. The court below had dismissed the petition on the premise that the petitioners have not filed any revision before this Court.
Mr. S. Vellaichamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the returned revision papers contained CRP.SR. No. 13486/2007 and the endorsement made by the Registry of this Court, questioning the maintainability of the revision. Therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioners for the delay is genuine and also reasonable and in the interest of justice the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed.
The Honourable Supreme Court, while framing certain guidelines regarding the discretion of the court to be exercised in condoning the delay in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, has held that it is the primary function of the Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties to advance substantial justice and the rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, since the same is founded on the principle of public policy.
By applying the said principle and in view of the reasons stated by the petitioners which appears to be reasonable and acceptable, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.11.2007 made in IA. No. 42/2007 in an unnumbered AS. No. Of 2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Virudhunagar is set aside and consequently, IA. No. 42/2007 stands allowed. No costs.