O R D E R

O.S.No.463 of 2012 is a suit for specific performance and perma-

nent injunction. To the said suit, a written statement was filed and issues were framed. The suit itself was dismissed for default on 04.06.2015. To restore the suit, an application was filed in I.A.No.605 of 2016 on 07.03.2017. There was a delay of 257 days in filing the application to re- store the suit. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge vide an order dated 21.09.2017.

2.Heard Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent served but not entered appearance. I have carefully gone through the records and perused the impugned order.

3.The ground on which the petition to condone the delay has been dismissed is that, no oral or documentary evidence was placed before the court for the purpose of substantiating that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever. It is seen that the suit was pending from 2012 for a peri- od of three (3) years and had been dismissed in the year 2015. Physical illness will be a good ground to condone the delay. It is not necessary in all cases that medical records will be available to substantiate the same.

4.The petitioner has pleaded viral fever and for such sickness, nor-

mally certificates are not issued. Be that as it may, as the party has ap- proached the court and claims to be in possession of the property and has paid a substantial court fee of nearly Rs.50,000/-, the court below could have considered the application in a liberal manner. The petitioner, being the plaintiff does not gain anything by delaying his suit. In a suit for spe-

cific performance, more the delay more the danger that caused to the suit.

5.In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the delay can be condoned on payment of costs. Accordingly the order passed in I.A.No.605 of 2016 in O.S.No.463 of 2012 dated 21.09.2017 is set aside.

6.The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (Rs.5,000/- each) within a period of eight (8) weeks from to- day. On such payment, the learned Trial Judge is requested to take the application under Order 9 Rule 9 and allow the same. It is made clear that in case the cost is not deposited, the CRP will stand dismissed.

7. This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid di-

rections. No costs.

15.09.2023 nst Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citations : Yes/No V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J, nst To: The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. 15.09.2023