This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2003 passed by VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A No. 9994 of 2000 in O.S No. 8575 of 1996, condoning the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C to restore the Suit in O.S No. 8575 of 1996, which has been dismissed for default. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.
2. The Plaintiff was the Company Executive of the First Defendant Company. Challenging the Notice of Revocation dated 24.04.1992 issued by the Board of Directors and the Second Defendant Chairman, revoking the services of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Declaration, declaring that the alleged revocation of his office of Managing Director of the Defendant Company is invalid, ineffective and void and that he has been and he continues to be the Managing Director of the First Defendant Company. The Suit was originally tiled in May 1992 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been enhanced in 1996, the Suit in C.S No. 614 of 1992 was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S No. 8575 of 1996. Due to the non-appearance of the Plaintiff, the Suit was dismissed for default on 16.06.1997
3. I.A No. 9994 of 2000: — The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application for restoration of the Suit. According to the Plaintiff, C.S No. 614 of 1992 was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and after transfer, no notice was issued to him from the City Civil Court, Chennai and hence, he could not make representation in the Suit. According to him, his non-appearance on 16.06.1997 was neither wanton nor wilful and hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Application to restore the Suit setting aside the order of dismissal of the Suit. This Application has been filed to condone the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit.
4. The Application was resisted by the Revision Petitioners/Defendants contending that it is the duty of the counsel and the parties to the Suit to follow their cases diligently. The Plaintiff has slept over for a long number of years and it is not open to him to file Application to restore the Suit at the belated stage. The inordinate delay of 1008 days has not been sufficiently explained and hence, the delay cannot be condoned.
5. Upon consideration of the averments in the Affidavit, learned Assistant Judge allowed the Application on the ground that opportunity is to be given to the Plaintiff to put forth his case. Holding that in the interest of justice, delay is to be condoned, learned Assistant Judge allowed the Application.
6. Aggrieved over the condoning of delay of 1008 days, the Defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court overlooked the fact that it is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff and his Counsel to keep a track of the Suit filed by them. Contending that the inordinate delay of 1008 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit has not been satisfactorily explained, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the order of the Court below is vague and erroneous and cannot be sustained.
7. Whether the inordinate delay of 1008 days in filing the Application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C to restore the Suit has been satisfactorily explained and whether the Plaintiff was prevented by “sufficient cause in prosecuting the Suit is the main point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.
8. If the order of dismissal is to be set aside and delay is to be condoned, the Plaintiff is to prove “sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 15.06.1997 and on the subsequent days. “Sufficient Cause must be to the satisfaction of the Court. When the lower Court exercises the discretion in condoning the delay, in exercising the Revisional Jurisdiction, the High Court would not interfere with the order unless it is shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous. In the light of the conduct of the Plaintiff in not pursuing the matter for three long years, it is to be seen whether the Court below was right in condoning the delay of 1008 days and allowing the Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
9. Due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, Civil Suits in the High Court have been transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai. The Transfer of those suits were by General Notification issued. The parties cannot expect individual notices in all such Suits transferred. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the Plaintiffs have not received any notice, the same cannot be the reason for non prosecuting the matter for more than three years. Had the Plaintiff been vigilant in enquiring the matter, the Plaintiff would have known about the transfer of the Suit. After the transfer of the Suit in 1996, the Suit was dismissed on 16.06.1997 The Application in I.A No. 9994 of 2000 was filed only in February 2000. This only shows that the Plaintiff had not taken appropriate steps/not vigilant in prosecuting the Suit. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that along with the Suit, simultaneously, the Plaintiff was prosecuting parallel proceedings before the Company Law Board. When that being so, the Plaintiff ought to have been more vigilant in pursuing the Suit.
10. It is not as if the Plaintiff is illiterate and not worldly wise. From the cause title, it is seen that he is the Company Executive of the First Defendant Company. The Plaintiff being the Company Executive must have been in the know of things and the consequences of non-prosecuting the Suit. The Plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained the reason for the inordinate delay of 1008 days. There is no sufficient reason for his absence on 16.06.1997 or the subsequent dates. Had he been little more careful and vigilant, the Plaintiff could have known about the transfer of the Suit to the City Civil Court, Chennai.
11. The object of law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have acquired in equity and justice and to avoid uncertainties and possibilities of the parties being dragged in the Court, there should be an end to the litigation. While condoning the delay, the Court is to keep in view the valuable right accrued to the opposite party. The party claiming indulgence must prove that he was reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter. Where the valuable rights had been accrued to the opposite party, the Court is not to condone the delay so as to substantially affect the rights accrued to the opposite party. The Defendants cannot be deprived of that valuable rights by allowing the Application on payment of meager cost of Rs. 1000/-.
12. In considering the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and considering “Sufficient Cause, the Court must exercise its discretion with reference to such circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. The Court must carefully weigh the contentions of both the parties and the rights accrued to them. In condoning the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit, there is no proper exercise of discretion. The Impugned Order is not a speaking order, indicating the judicial mind on the satisfaction of “Sufficient Cause. In that view of the matter, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the Order of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 20.03.2003 in I.A No. 9994 of 2000 in O.S No. 8575 of 1996 is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. The connected C.M.P No. 9233 of 2003 is closed.
VCJ/VCS