K. M. MAHBOOPKHAN Vs. A. M. ABDUL RASAK
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K. M. Mahboopkhan
A. M. Abdul Rasak
Click here to view full judgement.
P Velmurugan,J. -
(1.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in suit. The petitioners / plaintiffs have initiated the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.224 of 1999, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The said suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.470 of 2006 in O.S.No.224 of 1999 for restoration of the suit with a delay of 1199 days to condone the delay in filing restoration application. The said Application was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioners / plaintiffs are before this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs would submit that the petitioners filed the suit for specific performance against the respondents in the year 1999. Thereafter, due to ill-health of the first petitioner, they could not follow up the case and therefore, the suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, they filed an Application for restoration and the Application was misplaced by the Officials, therefore, they filed the restoration Application with a delay of 1199 days. He would further submit that the petitioners have filed the documents to show that during the relevant period the first petitioner was in ill-health and therefore, he could not follow up the case. However, the learned trial Judge, without considering the facts, dismissed the Application, which warrants interference of this Court.
(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the learned Judge after considering the entire materials, held that the plaintiffs have not shown sufficient cause to restore the Application and rightly dismissed the Application and hence, prayed for dismissal of this Revision.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.