The judgment establishes that the law of limitation applies to applications to restore suits dismissed for default, and highlights the consequences of vexatious litigation and forgery of signatures.

Application No.4234 of 2007 has been filed to condone the delay of 678 days in filing the application to restore C.S. No. 473 of 2001 which was dismissed for default in taking steps as against the defendants 2 and 3 on 24. 2005 and to restore the said suit.

2. Application No.4135 of 2007 has been filed to condone the delay of 3323 days in filing the application to restore C.S. No.336 of 1996 which was dismissed for default in taking steps as against the defendants 2 and 3 on 22. 1998 and to restore the said suit.

3. In Application No. 4234 of 2007, the reason for the delay as mentioned in the affidavit is that his counsel instructed Mr. Hameed Basha, his clerk, to follow it up and to take follow up action to serve summons to the defendants 2 and 3 who are at France and the bundle was also handed over to him. But the said clerk died on 7. 2004 due to some serious ailments and therefore, the counsel on record was not even able to get back the case bundle given to him for a long time. It is further stated in the affidavit that the applicant was under the impression that the first defendant who has filed several RCOPs, suits, Eps, CRPs, etc., against him on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as their power agent and is also contesting several RCAs, CRPs, Cr.Ops filed by the applicant against the defendants on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 as their agent with a forged power of attorney would have naturally represented these defendants in the suit also. There is no delay in filing the application to restore the suit dismissed for default against these defendants as no period of limitation is prescribed for applying for restoring the suit dismissed for default in taking steps under Order IX Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, by way of abundant caution it is stated that this condone delay application has been taken out to condone the delay of 678 days in filing the restoration petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the first defendant contended that the applicant itself being an Advocate. He has been appearing in the suits filed on behalf of his wife and son against others. According to the learned counsel for the first defendant, the applicant is squatting on the property without paying a single penny as rent for the past 15 years. He has brought to the notice of this Court to pages 27, 42, 43 and 48 of the typed set filed by him in the suit C.S.No.473 of 2001 in which the judgment, passed by his Lordship M. Srinivasan, former Judge of Supreme Court, while delivering the judgment in C.S.No.761 of 1998 in this Court as His Lordship then was. The said suit was filed by the wife of P.R. Adikesavan in which he himself appeared as P.W.1. The comments made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan, (as His Lordship then was) are as follows:-

Page 27: “It should not be forgotten that P.W.1 is a practicing Advocate. This shows that P.W.1 is a scheming man and usually concocts stories.”

Page 42: “A bare perusal of the above answers given by P.W.1 go a long way to show that his version is far away from truth.”

Page 43: “P.W.1 being a member of the Bar, must have been watching the progress of the suit from time to time and he must have been aware of the first defendant’s giving evidence on 211. 1986.”

Page 48: “As I have found that P.W.1 is not accustomed to speak the truth, I accept the contention of the first defendant’s counsel….”

5. Page 57 of the typed set is a complaint letter made by Mr. S.B. Fazluddin, Advocate who appeared for Mr. P.R. Adikesavan in the suit in C.S.No.473 of 2001, which reads as follows:

“Myself and my Junior entered appearance and filed our Vakalat in the year 2001 and we were conducting the case as requested by Mr. P.R. Adikesavan. But however, as we have our Vakalat back to Mr. P.R. Adikesaan in the year 2002 itself along with the entire case bundles, hoping that he will intimate the court about the change of Vakalat. However, only then it was realized by us that the said Mr. P.R. Adikesavan has be