O R D E R

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2015 made in I.A.No.851 of 2014 in O.S.No.632 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

2.The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.632 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, for delivery of possession, damages, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, against the respondents. The 1st respondent filed written statement and contested the suit. The suit was dismissed for default on 19.03.2013. The petitioner filed I.A.No.851 of 2014 to condone the delay of 303 days in filing the petition to restore the suit. According to the petitioner, the present suit was clubbed with O.S.No.630 of 2006 for joint trial. At that stage, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.630 of 2006 died. The petitioner took steps for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd defendant in O.S.No.630 of

2006. While so, the present suit was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in view of pendency of interim application for impleading the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.630 of 2006, the petitioner was under the impression that the present suit will be taken up for trial after disposal of the said I.A., filed for impleading the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.630 of 2006. The non-appearance of the petitioner and delay in filing the I.A. to restore the suit is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for allowing the I.A.

3.Before the Trial Court, the 1st respondent remained exparte in I.A.No.851 of 2014, filed to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the suit. The counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that only to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has come out with the present I.A. and petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the said I.A.

4.The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit and materials on record and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the I.A., holding that the reason given by the petitioner is not sufficient.

5.Against the said order dated 30.10.2015 made in I.A.No.851 of

2014 in O.S.No.632 of 2006, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no limitation for filing suit for recovery of properties belonging to the religious institution. As per the amended Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the limitation Act is not applicable to the application filed to set aside the exparte order of dismissal. The idol of the temple is minor and it is for the Court to protect the interest of religious institution. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied on the following judgments:

(i) 1996 1 LW 231 [Sri.Madhavaperumal Devasthanam, Mylapore Vs. Dhanalakshmi and others]:

“4. It should not be forgotten that an idol is in the position of a minor. It has been held in Bishwanath Vs. Radha Ballabhji (AIR 1967 SC 1044) that an idol is in the position of a minor and when the person representing it leaves it in lurch, a person interest in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest. The principle would certainly apply in a case where the persons in management of a temple have not been as diligent as is necessary in conducting a litigation on behalf of the temple. The court can taken notice of the fact that Executive Officers who are put in charge of the temple are changed periodically and in many a case, they do not get fully acquainted with the history or affairs of the temple. If there is some slackness on the part of the Executive Officer or even the trustees of the temple, it is the duty of the Court to see that the idol does not suffer thereby. Courts should be astute to protect the interests of a