ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Ist Additional Sub- ordinate Court Tiruchirapalli, reversing the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1199 of 2014, in O.S.No.1269 of 2004, dated 13.02.2015, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, in dismissing the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC.

2.The revision petitioner is the respondent/defendant. The respondent, who is the appellant/plaintiff, has laid a suit in O.S.No.1269 of 2004, against the revision petitioner claiming the relief of declaration that there is no liability due by the plaintiff or her predecessors–in–title to the defendant on any account and for conseqential permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in any manner, whatsoever, either by taking possession or otherwise.

3.The respondent/defendant has filed a written statement and was contesting the suit.

4.When the suit was posted for trial, the plaintiff has not chosen to proceed with the trial and as she was called absent and as there was no representation for her, the suit was ordered to be dismissed for default, vide Judgment and Decree, dated 13.06.2012. The plaintiff has thereafter, filed a petition in I.A.No.1199 of 2014, under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, to restore the suit which was dismissed for default on 13.06.2012.

5.The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed an order, dated 13.02.2015, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 and the learned Additional Sub-Judge, upon considering the materials produced and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order, dated 13.12.2019, allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1199 of 2014, dated 13.02.2015 and consequently allowed the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Challenging the said order, the defendant has come forward with the present revision petition.

6.The plaintiff has filed the above suit through her power agent and she is prosecuting the proceedings including the present revision through the same power agent. It is evident from the records that the power agent of the plaintiff has filed the affidavit in respect of the petition in I.A.No.1199 of 2004, filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and whereunder, she has stated that when the suit has been posted in the list for trial on 13.06.2012, she underwent a major heart surgery at Chennai and the Doctors who treated her asked her to take complete rest for six months, that she was advised not to leave Chennai for stipulated months and hence she could not meet her Advocate to give necessary instructions and that after return from Chennai, she met her Advocate and came to know that the suit was dismissed for default.

7.As rightly contended by the defendant’s side, even assuming for argument sake that the power agent had undergone heart surgery and was taking treatment, there was no reason or explaination, as to why the principal (plaintiff) has not chosen to appear before the Court on 13.06.2012. No doubt, the plaintiff has produced a certificate given by Dr.M.Balasubramaniam of Kauvery Hospital, Trichy. But, even according to the plaintiff, the power agent had undergone a major heart surgery and was taking treatment at Chennai. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any certificate or medical records to show that the power agent had undergone heart surgery and was taking treatment at Chennai.

8.As rightly observed by the learned District Munsif, the Consultant General Physician gave Ex.P1 certificate and that is not sufficient to prove the petitioner’s ailment for filing an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The applicant has to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for her n