LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board C.Chinnappa Gounder,
S/o Chinna Gounder,
Near Mettu Kadu,
Yervadi Post,
Mallur Via, Salem. Petitioner / Complainant.
-vs-
1. Superintendeing Engineer,
Salem Electricity Distribution Division,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Udaiyappatti, Salem.
2. Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Operation and Maiantenance,
Additional Power Station,
Keeranoor post,
Mallur Via, Salem.
3. Assistant Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Mallur West,
Salem . Respondents / Opposite parties.
Petition filed by the petitioner / complainant in the presence of
Mr.R.Rajendran,Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Counsel for the Respondents/ opposite parties, the petitioner praying to set aside the order passed and restore the petition which was dismissed for default and this forum passed the following :
ORDER
1. The gist of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/ proposed party is as follows :
This petition is filed by the petitioner / complainant under Order 9 Rule 9 and under Section 151 of CPC praying to set aside the order of the dismissal and to restore the CC. 125/02 which was dismissed for default on 23/8/2005.
2. In the affidavit it is stated that the CC.125/2002 was posted for arguments as last chance on 23.8.2005 and as the complainant who is an old man, was suffering from serious illness, was taking local medical treatment and so, he could not attend this forum and he could not inform to his counsel to make representation also. Hence ,the complaint was dismissed for default on 23.8.2005. The petitioner is having good case. After recovery of illness he contacted his counsel only the day before filing this petition. He was told that the complaint was dismissed for default. So, petitioner prayed to set aside the order passed and restore the complaint.
3. The gist of the counter is as follows :
The allegation stated in the affidavit are false. The CC.125/2002 was posted for arguments for several hearings right from the year 2003. When the case was posted finally for arguments on 23.8.2005 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner as well the petitioner has not appeared before this forum and so the above case was dismissed for default. The allegations of the petitioner that he was suffering from serious illness is not supported by any documentary evidence and this petitioner has never appeared before this forum even for a single hearing. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. On perusal of records, it is seen that CC.125/2002 was dismissed for default on 23.8.2005 as there was no representation for the complainant and the complainant himself was absent on that date.
5. Now, the petitioner has come forward with this petition to set aside the order passed and to restore the complaint by filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC. Though he has stated in his affidavit that he was suffering from serious illness and he was taking local medical treatment was not filed any documents as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is to be presumed that as the petitioner has taken local medical treatment he cannot produce any documents to prove the same. Moreover, the petitioner has stated that he is an old man and he has got good case. In the above circumstances, this forum is of the view that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prosecute his case. At the same time, the petitioner has to feel the pinch of the delay in filing this kind of petition.
6. In the result, this petition is ordered to be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondents by the petitioner on or before 18.12.2009 , failing which this petition shall stand dismissed.
Submit Complaint..
