O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order dated 04.03.2015 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2014 in O.S.No.208 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, thereby dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition for restoration of the main suit.

2.The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. Both the petitioners are minors, at the time of filing the suit and they were represented by their Power of Attorney. Both the petitioners are in abroad and while pending the suit, father of the 1st petitioner died and also 2nd petitioner attained majority. Therefore, he filed a petition to appoint the 2nd petitioner's father as power agent to represent the main suit and to appoint the mother of the 1st petitioner as next friend to represent the suit on behalf of the 1st petitioner along with a petition to declare that the 2nd petitioner has attained majority. The 1st two petitions in I.A.Nos.917 and 918 of 2010 were filed and both were allowed. Thereafter, the counsel who represented on behalf of the petitioners failed to carry out the amendments and as such the suit was dismissed for default on 15.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners and their representatives failed to approach the Advocate and after sometime, they came to understand that the suit itself dismissed for default. Further, the petitioners filed a petition to condone the delay of 1129 days in restoring the suit and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were in abroad at the time of filing the suit. Thereafter, the defendants were absent before the trial Court and they were set as exparte on 25.03.2010. After that, the suit was posted for exparte evidence on 29.04.2010 and a petition has been filed to appoint the mother of the 1st petitioner as next friend and also appoint Power of Attorney to represent both the petitions, viz., I.A.Nos.917 and 918 of 2010. Both the petitions were allowed and subsequently the counsel on record failed to carry out the amendment in the suit. Therefore, the suit was dismissed for default on 15.12.2010. Unfortunately, the petitioners were in abroad and as such they could not able to follow the suit and their parents also, due to inadvertence failed to contact the Advocate, and after a period of time, they came to understand that the suit was dismissed for default and as such delay of 1129 days is bonafide one and even then, the Court below without considering the same dismissed the I.A.No.258 of 2014 in O.S.No.208 of 2009 by order dated 04.03.2015. In support of his contention, he relied upon the cases of Sarasu Vs. Ravi [2016 5 CTC 117] and Chandra and others Vs.

M.Devendran [2019 (4) CTC 61].

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. They also filed a petition in I.A.Nos.917 and 918 of 200 and both the petitions were allowed and posted the suit to carry out amendments. But the petitioners failed to carry out the amendments and as such the suit was dismissed for default on 15.12.2010. She further submitted that no sufficient reasons were mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, that too for a huge number of days in filing the petition to restore the suit. There is absolutely no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1129 days. Even assuming that the petitioners were in abroad, their respective parents viz., the representatives are very much available in India and they could have very well contact their counsel and they might have taken steps to carry out the amendment. Therefore, knowing fully well about the suit that it was posted for carrying out amendments, the petitioners failed to d