IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02/12/2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

1.J.Sarosa No.20/70, Tiruvallur Street, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2.Palanichamy No.31/30, Nallaiya Naidu Street, Nammalwarpet, Chennai – 600 012.

3.K.Narayanan No.66/3, Subrayan Main Street, Nammalwarpet, Chennai – 600 012.

4.C.Tharamaikani Old No.70, New No.6, Nallakinaru Street, Mangalapuram, Chennai – 600 098.

... Petitioners/Petitioners/

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 & 5 Versus

1.J.Mohan No.80/36, Chengalvarayan Street, Nammalwarpet, Chennai – 600 012.

... Respondent/4^th Petitioner/

4^th Plaintiff (The 1^st Respondent / 4^th Plaintiff is not sailing along with the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs 1 to 3 & 5 in the Civil Revision Petition)

2.The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur.

4.The Branch Manager, SIDCO, Industrial Estate, Ambattur. ...Respondents/Respondents /

Defendants PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Order dated June 28, 2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.110 of 2015 by the learned III Additional District Court, Poonamallee.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Chandrasekar for Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondent-1 : Notice dispensed with in this Order For Respondents-2 &3 : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader For Respondent-4 : Mr.G.Vasuthevan Standing Counsel for TANSIDCO

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying to set aside the Order dated June 28, 2023 made by the 'III Additional District Court, Poonamallee' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), in an Application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 filed by the Revision Petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying to condone the delay of 794 days in filing the restoration Petition under Order IX Rule 9 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short).

2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Plaintiff's 1 to 3 & 5, the first respondent herein is the 4^th Plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 are the Defendants in the Original Suit in O.S.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The aforesaid Suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against the third defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession. The defendants filed a written statement. The trial commenced and when the case was posted on June 04, 2019 for continuation of chief examination of P.W.1, the plaintiffs did not appear and allowed the Suit to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Petition to restore the Suit with a delay of 794 days.

4. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, held that the trial commenced as early as on February 23, 2017, but, however, till June 04, 2019, the plaintiffs did not choose to complete the chief examination of P.W.1 itself. The conduct of the plaintiffs would show that the plaintiffs were not diligent enough to pursue the case. Further, the plaintiffs did not produce any medical records to substantiate their alleged case of medical illness. The Trial Court further held that the Suit was dismissed for default on June 04, 2019 much before the Covid-19 pandemic.

Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

5. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

6. The first respondent herein is the 4^th plaintiff / 4^th petitioner in the Interlocutory Application. The notice issued to him is returned as 'not residing in the petition mentioned address'. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that he is one of the plaintiffs in the Suit, this Court is of the view that his presence here is not necessary as no prejudice would be caused to him. Hence, notice to him is hereby dispensed with.

7. Mr.P.Chandrasekar representing Mr.R.Sivaraman, Counsel on record for the Revision Petitioners / plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 r