1. This revision is directed against the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.141 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 1992 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2170 days in filing the petition to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default on 12.03.2003.

2. The first petitioner, who is the wife of the third plaintiff, filed an affidavit in support of petition being I.A.No.141 of 2009 alleging that she is filing the affidavit for herself and other petitioners, who are her children. Her father-in-law had filed the suit in the capacity of Managing Director of A.K.Swarnam Theatre, a registered partnership firm. During the pendency of the suit, her father-in-law died and his legal heirs were added as plaintiffs in the suit. Her husband K.Antony Albin Gilton was arrayed third plaintiff in the suit. As eldest member of the family, her husband was following up the suit proceedings. It is alleged that during the year 2003, her husband was suffering from ailment and was taking treatment. Suddenly on 19.4.2006 her husband died due to heart attack.

3. According to the first petitioner, during August, 2007, when she met the counsel for some other consultation, she was informed that the suit was dismissed for default on 12.03.2003 stating that despite letters written to them, they have not turned up to proceed with the suit. According to the petitioners, after her husband fell sick, they shifted their residence to Thoothukudi and letters written by the counsel were not received. Therefore, a delay of 2170 days occurred in filing the petition to restore the suit. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton. If the suit is not restored, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

4. Refuting the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the respondent filed counter stating that only the second plaintiff was looking after the suit and the third plaintiff was never looking after the case alleged by the petitioners. In fact, during 2003, the third plaintiff faced the trial proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, C.C.No.343 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti and C.C.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Courts in Srivilliputtur and Tirunelveli. The allegation that since during 2003 the third plaintiff was bedridden and he was not able to attend Court is totally false.

5. According to the respondent, the first petitioner had also faced the trial in O.S.No.79 of 2010 on the file of Srivilliputtur Court during 2003 and the other plaintiffs have also conducted the case before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti. Further, the 10th plaintiff had conducted the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2004 before this Court. While so, the other plaintiffs have not taken steps to restore the suit, which was dismissed for default. After the dismissal of the suit in question, the plaintiffs have attended the Court and conducted some other suits. The petitioners have filed the petition to drag on the proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and no documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, Exs.R1 to R6 were marked and no witnesses have been examined.

7. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

8. I heard Mr.AN.Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and M/s. P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that the husband of the first petitioner was a heart patient and died on 19.04.2006. Exs.R1 to R5 filed by t