S SUDALAI Vs. AHAMED NACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit laid by the petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed for non- prosecution. To restore the suit, an application had been preferred by the petitioner. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 471 days in filing the said application, it is found that the petitioner has preferred an application in I.A.No.322 of 2004 to condone the said delay. The reason given by the petitioner / plaintiff for the condonation of the said delay is that he had already engaged Densingh as his Advocate and subsequently, he has entrusted his case to another Advocate Ramakrishnan and on the other hand, when the case was posted for trial, according to him, only the name of the earlier Advocate was mentioned and not the name of the new Advocate engaged by him and therefore, he was not aware of the listing of the suit on that particular date and also the dismissal of the suit consequently and therefore, according to him, the delay had occurred.

(2.) The above said application of the petitioner has been stoutly resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that the reasons given by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay do not constitute sufficient cause as contemplated under law and further, the said reasons are not true and acceptable and according to them, only with a view to cause hardship and troubles to them, the petitioner has laid the false suit and accordingly, unable to succeed in the suit, left the same to go for dismissal and therefore, the present application preferred by the petitioner is nothing but only to delay the proceedings endlessly and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) It is found that in support of the petitioner's case, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked and on the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.