9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. From that day onwards, the first defendant is not visited the plaintiffs family and not paid any maintenance amount. In fact, the first defendant is earning from his employment and also from the agricultural Rs. 5,000/- per month and the same was used for drinking as well as illegal activities. The first defendant on the corner site of the northeast for the suit schedule of property to an extent of 1450 sq. ft. has constructed house and living there and thereafter he has sold the said property along with the house on 05.05.1995 in favour of the second defendant. 3. Though the first plaintiff has believed that the first defendant had mend his way, and living with the plaintiffs but he has not maintain them. The first defendant also not chosen to take back the plaintiffs or paying maintenance to them. In fact the first defendant has not paid any single paise for the Maintenance, Education and Medical expenses and also for the Marriage expenses of the first plaintiff. Therefore, the second plaintiff, who is the wife of the first defendant, without any income, she was very much suffering from running the family. But, on the other hand, being the husband of the second plaintiff, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant and has living separately is totally false. As per the sale deed dated 05.05.1995, the first defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of the second defendant and maintenance of the plaintiffs, the said sale deed dated 05.05.1995, the second plaintiff being the mother of the first plaintiff has put her signature as witness in the sale deed. But suppressing the fact, the second plaintiff has claimed that the sale deed dated 05.05.1995 has not executed with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. 7. The third defendant has also stated that on 27.09.1999, the first defendant has executed the sale deed for himself and his minor daughter viz. the first plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the third defendant. After purchase the sale deed on 27.09.1999, the third defendant has constructed a building and running a shop in the said property. But suppressing all these facts, the above suit has been filed. The claim of the plaintiffs about the partition as well as the maintenance is totally false. Therefore, the third defendant has sought for dismissal of this petition. 8. The suit was posted for trial on 31.01.2003, but due to non intimation by the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication in I.A.No.295 of 2007. 11. Considering their case, the learned Judge namely the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani has dismissed the application on 07.12.2010 on the ground that the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 were not given any valid reasons for the huge delay of 1600 days in filing the set aside application. Apart from this, the petitioners have not given any reason for each and every day delay, which was held by the Hon ble Apex Court. Therefore, he dismissed the application on 07.12.2010. Challenging, the said order of dismissal, the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 were filed the present civil revision petition before this Court. 12. Heard Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and No representation for the respondents 1 and 3 and perused the documents filed by both the parties. 13. It is admitted fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants 1 to 3 for declaration declaring the sale deed dated 27.09.1999 executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the third defendant for partition of the suit schedule of property by two shares and put the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated the reasons as follows: 13. It is a settled legal principle that law of limitation is founded on Public Policy not meant to destroy rights of parties, but to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. Likewise, it has been held that liberal approach in considering an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not override the substantial law of limitation and no premium can be given for lethargic attitude or utter negligence. 14. Bearing these settled legal principles in mind, if the case on hand is examined, the only answer that could be given is that the plea of the Petitioners lacks bona fide. Such conclusion is supported by following reasons. 15. As pointed out by the Respondent in the Counter filed in I.A.No.1175 of 2009, the Petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Revenue Court at Bhavani by appearing before the said Court in T.R.No.20 of 2007 on 29.6.2009, 6.7.2009, 28.8.2009, 7.9.2009 & 14.9.2009. That apart, the Second Petitioners had participated in the proceedings in O.S.No.284 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani on several dates between the period 4.6.2009 and 11.9.2009. Apart from that in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed. The Courts have a wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The sufficient cause for non-appearance refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other circumstances anterior in time. If sufficient cause is made out for non-appearance of the Defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings were initiated against him, he cannot be penalized for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and thereby condoned earlier. In a case where the Defendant approaches the Court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional. For the absence of a party in the case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits. 7. In the above said case, the ex parte decree was passed on 10.3.1983 and Application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 7.4.1983 within 30 days. However, it was dismissed by the Trial Court assigning reason that the Medical Certificate filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-suited for the relief prayed for. There is no valid ground made out to interfere with the order passed by the Court below, which deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Court below is confirmed. 18. Admittedly there is a delay of 1600 days in filing the set aside application, if at all the petitioners / defendants filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree, they have to approached the Court below within the time limit. But, after 1600 days delay, they approached the Court for setting aside the exparte decree, that too after 4 years. 19. For the huge delay of 1600 days delay, there was no proper explanation by the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3, in fact the conduct of the defendants 2 and 3 namely petitioners herein that there was gross negligence on the part of them in depending the matter. This Court and the Hon ble Apex Court clearly stated that it is a settled legal principle that law of limitation is founded on Public Policy not meant to destroy rights of parties, but to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. Likewise, it has been held that liberal approach in considering an Application under Section 5 of the Limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
