O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the Decree and Judgment, dated 09.06.2017 made in I.A.No.16113 of 2016 in O.S.No.2346 of 2008, on the file of the learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff is a scheduled Bank and the 1st respondent availed loan for sum of Rs.7,94,300/- on 23.02.2005 by executing a hypothecation agreement with relevant loan documents. Since the respondents/defendants failed to repay the loan amount, the Revision Petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money.

3. The suit was originally pending on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and without any notice or intimation to the plaintiff or defendants, the suit was transferred to the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and that the suit was dismissed for default on 07.08.2012.

4. On 30.11.2014, when the list of cases pending and disposed were taken, it was found that the suit was originally pending before the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and had not been taken up for further hearing. After scrutinizing the website of this Court, the counsel for the petitioner came to know that the suit was dismissed for default on 07.08.2012. The Revision Petitioner on coming to know the knowledge of dismissal of the suit, within 30 days from the orders passed by the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had filed a petition in I.A.No.8838 of 2015 for restoration of the suit. The Court had dismissed the same stating that the petition has to be filed along with the petition for condonation of delay and thereby the petition in I.A.No.16113 of 2016 was filed to condone the delay of 1472 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order.

5. The respondents/defendants filed a counter stating that the restoration petition ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the suit. But the plaintiff, Bank had filed the restoration petition after 1472 days. From 07.08.2012 to till date of filing of the I.A for restoration, there is a delay of more than 4 years and the plaintiff bank had not explained the reasons for the delay properly. It was further contended that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition for restoration of the suit in I.A.No.8838 of 2015 and that when it had already been dismissed, one more Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.16113 of 2016 filed for restoration of the suit for the same cause of action with same reasons, is not permissible in law. It was also contended that the Revision Petitioner had not properly explained each day's delay for condonation and that the plaintiff bank had not approached this Court with clean hands with valid reasons.

6. It was further contended that the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled for any indulgence, because the suit itself filed after three years period, which is barred by the principle of Limitation and the restoration petition also filed after the limitation period of three years.

Hence, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court finding that the earlier petition filed in I.A.No.8838 of 2015, was dismissed and that the present petition has been filed to reagitate the same issue which was already decided, had dismissed the petition, against which, the present Revision has been preferred.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit the petitioner is a scheduled bank. The suit was filed for recovery of loan amounts . Originally the suit was pending on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and without any notice or intimation, the case was transferred to the file of the learned XVIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai and that the suit was dismissed for default on 07.08.2012. The plaintiff and its counsel were not present in Court