BY AD v. VISHNU DAS

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.290/2012 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, which was subsequently transferred to the Munnar Special Tribunal and renumbered as MTOP No.150/2014. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the counter-claim preferred by the respondent Company was allowed. The issue pertains to a line room allotted to the petitioner in her capacity as an employee of the 1st respondent Company.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 to restore the suit back on files vide Ext.P4, along with Ext.P3 application to condone the delay of 2290 days. The same was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Devikulam as per Ext.P5 order, challenging which the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 C.M.A. before Sub Court, Devikulam. The same was also dismissed vide Ext.P7 order, which OP(C) No.37 of 2024 - 3 - is under challenge in this Original Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Company, which is the contesting respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed at Tamil Nadu and she was not aware of the decree being passed against her. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a woman, aged 75 years and, therefore, the petitioner could not monitor the suit and the proceedings properly. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was illegally terminated from the service of the 1st respondent Company in the year 2007 and an industrial dispute in this regard is pending. The suit was filed when petitioner was served with a notice requiring of her to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule building.

4. Per contra, the prayer sought for in this Original Petition was seriously opposed by the OP(C) No.37 of 2024 - 4 - learned counsel for the 1st respondent. It was pointed out that the application to restore the suit back on files was filed after six years from the date of passing the decree. The fact that the petitioner is aged 75 years, or for that matter, she was engaged in a job at Tamil Nadu, are not a sufficient reasons to condone a whopping delay of six years, is the Counsel's submission.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, there is a delay of more than six years. The reasons stated is that the petitioner is aged 75 years and that she was employed at Tamil Nadu, both of which can hardly be recognised as sufficient cause to condone the huge delay of 2290 days. No plausible explanation, much less any sufficient reason, is either pleaded or proved to condone the inordinate delay, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The law protects the OP(C) No.37 of 2024 - 5 - diligent and not the indolent. The very purpose of limitation will be frustrated, if Ext.P3 application is allowed condoning the delay of 2290 days. It would certainly jeopardise the thrust for rule of law, if the matter, which has attained a quietus between the parties prior to six years by a decree, is interfered with and upset after six years, without any sufficient or just cause.

6. This Court also ascertained the bare minimum merits of the matter, for the purpose of adjudicating the question as to whether the whopping delay of 2290 days has to be condoned. This Court notice that the petitioner was terminated in the year 2007, after which, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate claim over the plaint schedule building. The petitioner has no apparent right to retain possession of the same, once her employment is terminated. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner has any proprietary or titular interest in the plaint schedule property and that it remains undisputed that OP(C) No.37 of 2024 - 6 - the same was allotted to the petitioner in her capacity, as an employee of the 1st respondent Company. Although, an industrial dispute in respect of termination is stated to be pending, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to submit as regards the status of the said industrial dispute.

7. Therefore, on merits as well, there is little ground to interfere with the well considered orders of the learned Munsiff, as also, the learned Sub Judge. In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE OP(C) No.37 of 2024 - 7 - APPENDIX OF OP(C) 37/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.04.2014. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MTOP NO.150/2014 OF THE MUNNAR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL DATED 18.12.2015. THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 18/2022 IN OS NO. 290/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 11.03.2022. THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1/2022 IN OS NO. 290/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 11.03.2022. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 18/2022 AND IA 1/2022 IN OS NO.290/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 29.09.2022. THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 18.10.2022. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMA NO.8/2022 BY THE SUB COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 30.06.2023.