The main legal point established in the judgment is that no litigant should suffer for the mistake of the Court or Court Staff, and that the cause of substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities.

1. Thepetitioner/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 16/7/2004 in I.A.No.50 of 2003 in O.S.No.712 of 1993 passed by the learned III Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.50 of 2003 in O.S.No.712 of 1993 on 16/7/2004 has among other things observed that "the first petitioner while appearing before the Court on 7/7/2004 has stated that the second petitioner therein (S.S.Adimoolam, his brother) has expired seven years before and hence, the application filed on their behalf is not legally maintainable and accordingly dismissed the application.

3. The Learned counsel for the first petitioner/first petitioner / first plaintiff urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in dismissing I.A.No.50 of 2003 in O.S.No.712 of 1993 on 16/7/2004 is contrary to law and the same is vitiated by material irregularity.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.50 of 2003 filed by the first petitioner/first plaintiff and another to advance the substantial cause of justice.

5. Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the civil revision petitioner/first plaintiff and his brother Adimoolam, who expired during the pendency of the proceedings filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also for the relief of mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants and the trial Court has failed to appreciate an important fact that the petitioner projected C.M.A.No.68 of 1993 as against the dismissal of injunction application in I.A.No.150 of 1993, but, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into account in a proper perspective by the trial Court which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes a plea that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit for non-payment of batta on 24/6/1994 and in fact, in Restoration Application in I.A.No.50 of 2003, notice has been given to the other side and the Restoration Petition has also been filed in time.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Restoration Application in I.A.No.50 of 2003 has been filed on 18/7/1994, which is entered in 19th register bearing No.25677 and latter, the concerned Clerk has stated that the Restoration Petition has been misplaced in the Office and that the petitioner has been waiting that the Restoration Application will be traced out by the concerned Clerk and t?e same will be numbered.

8. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petitioner has not traced C.M.A.No.68 of 1993 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Madurai mentioning all the facts of dismissal of suit, filing of Restoration Application, making an entry in 19th Register, the representation of the concerned Clerk regarding the misplacement of application, etc., and therefore, the other side learned Counsel has known about the filing of the Restoration Application in time, etc.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed W.P.No.13276 of 1995 before this Court on 15/7/2002, this Court has placed orders directing both parties to file necessary application before the Sub-Court in O.S.No.712 of 1993. Indeed, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that I.A.No.50 of 2003 has been filed on 17/7/2002 before the learned Sub-Judge, Madurai, but the learned Special Judge, Madurai has wrongly come to the conclusion that I.A.No.50 of 2003 has been filed on 10/2/2003 i.e., after nine years.

10. The principle contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that for the misplacement of papers by the Court office, the petitioner is not in any way connected with or responsible and therefore, for the mistake committed by the Court Staff, the pe