INTRODUCTORY:

The learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing first appeal, not-with-standing the fact that the first respondent was given a judgment and decree by the Trial Court, declaring her title, without producing any document relating to title or possession and without any discussion on the merits of the matter. The judgment and decree of declaration was given by the Munsif Court with respect to a property shown in the revenue records as Government land and earmarked to be used as parking ground for parking the vehicles of pilgrims visiting the famous Ramanathaswamy Temple at Rameshwaram. In short, the learned District Munsif punished the petitioner for its failure to appear before the Court by passing an "automatic decree", otherwise called as "default decree".

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

2. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 2000 against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 before the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. The first respondent, in the said suit, claimed that the suit property absolutely belongs to her and as such, she is entitled to a decree of declaration and consequential injunction. The defendants, in the suit including the petitioner herein, failed to contest the matter and the same resulted in passing an expartejudgment and decree on 28 February, 2001.

3. According to the petitioner, Rameshwaram Municipality, was originally a Town Panchayat. Rameshwaram Town Panchayat was, subsequently, upgraded as a Municipality, taking into account the importance of the pilgrim city. The then Executive Officer miserably failed either to defend the suit or to file an appeal, within the time permitted by law.

4. The petitioner, after assuming Office as Commissioner, Rameshwaram Municipality, found that the first respondent made a wrongful claim to grab the property owned and possessed by the local body and earmarked for a parking purpose. The petitioner immediately initiated action to file appeal before the first appellate Court.

5. The Commissioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the application, indicated the details with regard to the nature of property, ownership of the land, the public purpose and the reasons for the delay in filing appeal.

6. The application in I.A.No.4 of 2009 was opposed by the first respondent.

7. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain each day's delay in preferring the appeal. The application was dismissed, by order dated 07 August, 2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Rameshwaram Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, is before this Court.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property in question absolutely belongs to the local body. The revenue records clearly show the ownership of the land. According to the learned counsel, the then Executive Officer and all others connected with the case in collusion with the first respondent failed to file written statement and the same resulted in passing an exparte decree. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner verified the revenue records, and it was noticed that the land earmarked for parking vehicles in the temple city of Rameshwaram was claimed by a person and she obtained a decree of declaration. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. It was further contended that the learned Appellate Judge, without considering the fact that the first respondent initiated a vexatious litigation with a view to grab the land owned by the local body, dismissed the application, without any valid reason.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent supported the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner was expected to explain the enormous delay in preferring the first appeal. The Mu