Judgment:
Civil revision petition preferred against the fair and decreetal order of the Court of the District Munsif, Arani at Tiruvannamalai District made I.A.No.250 of 2004 in O.S.No.86 of 1994, dated 08.08.2006.
ORDER
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif, Arani at Tiruvannamalai District in I.A.No.250 of 2004 in O.S.No.86 of 1994, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.
3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in the Sub Court, Arni for recovering a sum of Rs.31,971.00 based on the suit promissory note with subsequent interest and cost. It appears the defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. In the meanwhile, on the point of jurisdiction the case was transferred to the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, where according to the defendant, the petitioner appeared on receipt of Court notice. However, the case was not listed on the date of hearing, ie. 12.08.1994. Subsequently despite incessant demands made by the petitioner/plaintiff to ascertain about the stage of the case, he could not get particulars and thereafter, he came to know that the suit was dismissed for default, in view of the plaintiff having not paid batta for taking notice to the defendant. As such, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the plaintiff so as to get the delay of 1842 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 rule 9 of CPC. The said application was transferred from the Sub Court, Tiruvanamalai to the District Munsif Court, Arni on the ground of jurisdiction. The District Munsif Court, Arni the said I.A.No.184 of 2001 was renumbered as I.A.No.250 of 2004. After hearing both sides, the District Munsif Court dismissed the application on the ground that no valid reasons were found set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition and that while giving oral evidence, P.W.1 - the petitioner had on prevaricative stands relating to receipt of notice from the Sub Court concerned. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same same, the petitioner preferred this revision on various grounds.
4. Placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner would advance his arguments, the gist and kernel of the same would run thus:
The delay was not deliberate and the petitioner/plaintiff being the lender of the money under the suit promissory note, was very much interested in recovering the dues and he had no reason at all to delay the process; wherefore, an opportunity could be given to him. The case was transferred from the Sub Court, Arni to the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai and thereafter to the District Munsif Court, Arni and in that process, there resulted some communication gap and ultimately that ensued in the delay. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for condoning the delay even on cost.
5. Counter was filed by the respondent resisting the application.
6. Placing reliance on the counter, the learned counsel for the respondent would put forth and set forth his arguments which could succinctly and tersely be set out thus:
Throwing to winds the norms of expeditious prosecuting of the case, the plaintiff indulged in dilatory tactics and absolutely there is no reason much less valid reason for getting the delay of 1842 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 rule 9 of CPC. The law is well settled that even though each and every day's delay need not be explained, at least there should be valid reason generally to get the delay condoned and that too when the delay is enormous as in this case to an extent of 1842 days. Accordingly, the learned counsel would submit that considering pro et contra, the lower Court properly dismissed the application, warranting no interference in the revision.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any error in the order of the lower Court in dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that no valid reasons were found set out in the affidavit accompanying the application?
8. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following maxim:
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt - The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.
9. However, in this case, one other factor should not be forgotten. This is a suit for recovery of money. Scarcely any man having head over shoulder who is very much interested in recovering his money by filing the suit, would dilly-dally and shilly- shally with his matter deliberately. But for the transfer of the case from the Sub Court, Arni to the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, and once again from that Court to the District Munsif Court, Arni, this murky situation might not have resulted. No doubt the petitioner also cannot simply seek shelter for getting the delay condoned on the ground of transfer of the case. He should have been vigilant enough in contacting his Advocate in ascertaining the position. The petitioner herein would in his affidavit stress upon the fact that he made incessant enquiries with the Court office as well as with his Advocate, but he could not get ascertained the true picture. No doubt the legal procedures are handmaids of justice. Taking into account the fact that this is a singularly singular case in which the case was transferred from one Court to another and thereafter, it was re-transferred to yet another Court; that, in such situation alone this delay occurred and that there was no full proof system to get information from the Courts relating to pendency of the case as it is now prevailing, I am of the view that one more opportunity could be given to the plaintiff, subject to payment of cost by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent.
10. Accordingly, the delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the respondent within a period of fifteen days from this date. The trial Court on being satisfied about the compliance with this, shall number the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and take it urgently and on the suit being restored, the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.