The court has the discretion to condone delay in representing a plaint, balancing the rights of the parties involved.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi in I.A.No.559 of2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus:

(i) The revision petitioner herein happened to be the plaintiff, who presented the plaint with the following prayer:

“ TAMIL ”

(extracted as such)

(ii) However, it was returned for carrying out certain defects and there was a delay of 695 days in representing the plaint after complying with the defects.

(iii) After hearing both sides, the court below dismissed the said application for condoning the delay in representing the plaint.

(iv) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been focussed.

3. Notice was refused by the respondent/defendant as per the endorsement found in the RPAD postal cover.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would submit that his client is a Doctor by profession and he entrusted the matter to his Advocate and because of his stay in a foreign country, he could not contact his Advocate. However, the lower court simply refused to believe the said explanation and dismissed the application to get the delay condoned in representing the plaint.

5. It appears, this case is having a chequered career of its own. Initially, the plaint was presented before the Sub Court, Mannargudi and it was returned for being filed before the Munsif Court, Mannargudi and in that process there was some delay. The revision petitioner happened to be a Doctor, who claimed that he went to foreign country and settled there. Subsequently, he came to India and found that the plaint, which he filed before the court through his Advocate was returned and that there occurred delay.

6. Before this court, the respondent has not appeared and the notice sent has been refused.

7. The lower court took a strict view of the matter and refused to condone the delay of 695 days in representing the plaint. I am of the view that regarding representation of the plaint is concerned, some leniency could be shown as otherwise, the petitioner would not be able to prosecute the case once and for all and however, in that process, the other side should also not be put to discomfiture.

8. Hence, by way of striking a balance between the rights of the rival parties, I would like to condone the delay subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance, if the plaint is found to be in order, the same could be numbered as otherwise, this order cannot be taken as one mandating the court below to number the plaint even if there are defects.

9. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.