(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.)

1. 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 4th 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 4th plaintiff / 4th 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 reiterates the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and submits that due to some medical reasons, the plaintiffs could not appear before the Trial Court on the date of hearing. Thereafter, Covid-19 pandemic started spreading in India. Hence, there was a delay. Further, he would submit that in the interest of justice and with a view to give one more opportunity to the plaintiffs to put forth their case, he prays to set aside the Trial Court Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.110 of 2015 and consequently allow I.A.No.1 of 2021.

8. In response to the above submissions, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 2 & 3 submits that the plaintiffs did not produce any medical records to condone the delay. She would further submit that the reason assigned in the affidavit is not acceptable and convincing. Hence, the Trial Court rightly exercised its discretion and refused to condone the delay of 794 days. There is no need to interfere with it. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.

9. Mr.G.Vasuthevan, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent adopted the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader.

10. This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is true that the plaintiffs did not adduce any medical records to show that the 5th Petitioner/5th Plaintiff was admitted in the hospital and hence, they were unable to appear on the date of hearing. However, considering the nature of the case, in the interest of justice, with a view to adhere to the principles of natural justice fully and to decide the matter on its merits, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition subject to payment of cost.

11. Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed on condition that the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 / Revision Petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) (Each Revision Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-) to the Respondents 2 to 4 on or before December 15, 2025 either by way of cash or by way of Demand Draft or by way of deposit in the Original Suit before the Trial Court, failing which, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any reference to this Court.

12. List the matter on 19.12.2025 under the cause list caption “for Reporting Compliance”.