The court reaffirmed that delays in property rights cases can be condoned when substantial interests are at stake, particularly when due to attorney oversight.

O R D E R

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit. Hence, they were clubbed together and heard for disposal.

2. The plaintiffs are the civil revision petitioners. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Sundaramma purchased the suit schedule mentioned property by way of a registered sale deed on 30.03.1992. She passed away on 14.12.1999. She left behind as her legal heirs, the first plaintiff Chenga Reddy and her sons viz., the second plaintiff and one Prathap Reddy. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 7 had purchased the property from a person, who did not have title to alienate the same. On the basis of the fraudulent document which had been executed in favour of the defendants 1 to 7, they had mutated the revenue records in their favour. As the defendants have taken possession of the property, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and for delivery of possession, damages and permanent injunction not to alienate the property and for a mandatory injunction to remove the compound wall and for costs.

Summons were served and the pleadings were completed.

3. The plaintiffs were represented by their power agent one Manimegalai.

Pending the suit, the first plaintiff Chenga Reddy passed away on 07.12.2006. As his wife Sundaramma passed away, the persons who were entitled to succeed to the estate were the second plaintiff and his brother C.J.Prathap Reddy. As the agent and the second plaintiff did not appear before the Court on the date it was called for hearing, the suit was dismissed for default. Therefore, the plaintiff filed applications viz., I.A.No.711 of 2015 to condone the delay of 297 days in filing the restoration petition, I.A.No.191 of 2017 to set aside the order of dismissal of the suit and to restore the suit on to its file. An application was also filed to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay of 2337 days in filing an application to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of Chenga Reddy.

4. The learned District Munsif, instead of numbering and taking up the Section 5 application alone, numbered both the Section 5 application, as well as the application to restore the suit. They were numbered as I.A.No.711 of 2015 and I.A.No.191 of 2017. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The respondents though served, did not enter appearance. Learned District Munsif, Ambattur took up the applications for disposal.

5. He came to the conclusion that the second plaintiff ought to have been vigilant and should not have relied upon the power of attorney for prosecuting the case. Finding that no sufficient cause was shown, the learned Judge dismissed not only the application under Section 5, but also the one under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the restoration application, originally a revision was presented to this Court.

6. As objections were raised by the Registry stating that only an appeal lies as against an order dismissing an application to restore the suit, the plaintiff came to present C.M.A.No.21 of 2017. By an order dated 05.11.2019, the learned I Additional District Judge at Tiruvallur dismissed the appeal. She concurred with the view of the learned District Munsif that the plaintiff had not been vigilant to follow the suit proceedings and consequently confirmed the order. Aggrieved by the order passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2017, C.R.P.No.2884 of 2021 has come up before this Court.

7. Insofar as C.R.P.No.4312 of 2017 is concerned, that challenges the order passed by the learned District Munsif in refusing I.A.No.711 of 2015. The revisions were entertained by th