(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.251 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.)

1. The second plaintiff in O.S.No.251 of 2011 is the revision petitioner. The second plaintiff attempted to have the suit restored to file, consequent to the suit having been dismissed for default, along with an application for condonation of delay of 1720 days.

2. The trial Court dismissed the application, as against which, the present revision has been filed.

3. I have heard Mr.S.Senthil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8.

4. Mr.S.Senthil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the first respondent/Trust was found in the year 2004 and the plaintiff's were life trustees. However, the disputes arose amongst the trustees and behind the back of the plaintiffs, a supplementary trust deed was brought about and the plaintiffs were removed from trusteeship. The learned counsel further stated that the second plaintiff believed the first plaintiff and was under the impression that since the first plaintiff had assured the second plaintiff that he would take care of the suit, the second plaintiff did not follow up the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the first plaintiff was even impleaded as the ninth respondent in the IA, seeking to restore the suit. The learned counsel would further state that the application to restore the suit was filed soon after coming to know about the dismissal of the suit in July 2020. Therefore, he prays for an opportunity being given to the petitioner to prosecute the suit on merits, especially when the life trusteeship of the revision petitioner has been taken away illegally, by amending the trust deed, without any authority.

6. Per contra, Mr.Marudachalamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 submits that the plaintiffs are not strangers and in fact, they are co-sisters, living under the same roof and therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioner that the petitioner was under the belief that the first plaintiff would be taking care is only invented for the purpose of explaining the delay on the part of the revision petitioner and the learned counsel would further further state that even as late as on 26.03.2018, the plaintiffs were together and they filed Crl.O.P.No.9478 of 2018 before this Court, seeking directions to the police authorities to not harass them and their family members and the trust.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore states that the averments in the affidavit that the first plaintiff kept the second plaintiff in dark is falsified by their jointly approaching this Court and seeking directions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel therefore states that there is absolutely no error committed by the trial Court, in dismissing the application. He has also relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs and others vs Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336. He would therefore pray for the revision being dismissed.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the order passed by the trial Court, as well as the decision on which reliance has been placed on by the learned counsel for the respondents.

9. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner, along with the ninth respondent filed the suit for declaration in O.S.No.251 of 2011 to declare the supplementary trust deed as null and void and not binding on them and to consequently declare the resolution dated 16.09.2011 to remove the plaintiffs from trusteeship as illegal and null and void and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 8 from interfering with the plaintiffs' right to perform their duties as trustees of the first defendant trust.

10. The defendants had filed written statement, even as early as in March 2012. It is thereafter that the suit came to be dismissed for default on 06.10.2015. The revision petitioner alleges that the first plaintiff has drifted away from her and joined hands with the defendants. The revision petitioner's case is that she had believed the first plaintiff would be taking good care of the suit and hence, the revision petitioner was totally in dark and did not know about the suit having been dismissed for non prosecution on 06.10.2015.

11. From the plaint, as well as even the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, I find that both the plaintiffs reside in the same place. The fact that they have joined hands to seek protection under Section 482 before this Court, as late as in 2018, cannot go unnoticed. There appears to have been no conflict of interest between the revision petitioner (second plaintiff) and ninth respondent/ first plaintiff. Therefore only in order to invent a reason for the delay that has occasioned in having the suit restored to file, the second plaintiff/revision petitioner has attempted to shift the blame on the first plaintiff/ninth respondent.

12. In fact, in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application, the petitioner does not even disclose as to how she came to know about the dismissal of the suit in July 2020 only. Excepting for stating that the revision petitioner was believing the first plaintiff, no other reason is assigned for seeking condonation of delay. The trial Court has rightly considered the respective contentions of the parties and held that the petitioner is not entitled to condonation of delay of 1720 days, which has not been satisfactorily explained before the Court.

13. The Hon'be Supreme Court, in Pathapati Subba Reddy's case, cited supra, held that since the law of limitation is based upon public policy, there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy, rather than the right itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that though a liberal approach, justice oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may require condonation of delay, discretion to condone delay can be exercised only when sufficient cause is made out and even if sufficient cause is made out, if there is inordinate delay, negligence or want of due diligence, even then the discretion need not be exercised towards condonation.

14. It is now equally settled law that at the time of inquiring into a delay application, merits of the case can not be considered and therefore applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find that the petitioner has been able to adequately explain the delay in approaching the Court with a request to restore the suit to file. The reasons assigned are also unsustainable, considering the fact that the petitioner is residing in the same place along with the 1 st respondent and they have been together even as late as in March 2018. Therefore I do not find any merit in this revision petition, warranting interference in revision.

15. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.