9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Krishna Mandiram Trust, Karur, as its Trustees against the revision petitioners and 37 others for recovery of possession, for declaration of their right, for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent/State and its Officers and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, for recovery of possession of portions of the suit property from defendants 2 to 25, and for mesne profits from the date of the suit till possession to be determined under Order 20, Rule 1 C.P.C. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons and after they were permitted to sue as indigent persons, the suit was dismissed for default once on 6.11.1989. However, it was restor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned ex parte once again, and that it would clearly show that they had no intention to conduct the case. The counter further alleges that the suit had been pending for 17 year. and more, and that it would be highly unjust if the delay got condoned. 5. The lower Court after considering the rival contentions, in an elaborately considered order, dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioners and it is as against this the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. Mr. T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the plaintiffs themselves allowed the suit to go for default once and they should not find fault with the revision petitioners that they had not been diligent. The learned counsel further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is hardly an acceptable explanation. He knew about the ex part a decree even in 1994. The ex parte decree came to be passed on 1.9.1994. Till December 1996, the petitioners were keeping quiet though they knew about the ex parte decree. In fact in cross examination, P.W.1 has stated as follows: I am not at all satisfied that the petitioners are bona fides in seeking a decision in the suit on merits. It has already been noticed that the plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons. Apparently, the trust, thanks to the recalcitrant attitude of its tenants like the petitioners, was not in a position to find necessary funds for filing a suit and they had to do it as indigent persons. The suit has been pending for 17 year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. In Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 5 of the Limitation Act observed as follows: In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its, own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court, 14. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in M.K.Prasad v. P.Arumugham, JT 2001 (6) SC 551 the appellant tried to explain the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree as was evident from his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by his own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the passing of the decree after one year, only when he received the notice for execution proceedings initiated by the respondent and thereafter he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application for condoning the delay. The trial Court rejected the prayer of the appellant for condoning the delay of 554 days in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decree. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed. The Supreme Court referred to a number of its earlier decisions, held that the conduct of the appellant did not warrant his being ousted from litigation. 15. In the instant case it has already been noticed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
