P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
1. This revision arises out of the order passed in I.A. No.341 of 1983 in O.S. No.67 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Man aparai. The respondent herein, though served, remained absent. He filed O.S. No.67 of 1982 for a declaration and injunction. That suit has been decreed on 18th February,1983. On 21st February, 1983 the petitioners filed a Copy Application in order to get copies of judgment and decree in O.S. No.67 of 1982 for the purpose of preferring an appeal. On 22nd March, 1983 copy stamps were called for in that application and since no stamp was deposited, that Copy Application was struck off on 25th March, 1983. Within a month thereafter, i.e., on 13th April, 1983, the present application I.A. No. 341 of 1983 was filed for restoring the copy application which was struck off, inter alia, alleging that the petitioners had to leave their native place due to famine conditions, that they had been to Kerala, that as soon as they returned to their village, they came to know that their Copy Application had been struck off and that immediately they filed I.A. No. 341 of 1983 on 13th April, 1983 to restore that Copy Application. The Court below has dismissed that petition simply observing that the reasons shown for restoring the Copy Application are not satisfactory. It is as against this order, the present revision has been filed.
2. Mr. M. Swamikkannu, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, pointed out the decision reported in G . Hari Prasad v. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras : AIR1959Mad406 , which is clear to the effect that the Courts, to which the Civil Rules of Practice apply, have ample jurisdiction to restore the dismissed Copy Application. The learned Counsel submits that the Court below ought to have restored the Copy Application since sufficient reasons have been given for not furnishing the copy stamps called for in time.
3. I have gone through the order passed by the Court below. There is absolutely no discussion as regards the reasons given by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 341 of 1983. The order simply states that the ground shown is not satisfactory. This is not a satisfactory way of disposing of a petition of this nature. It has been clearly averred by the petitioners that they have to leave their village due to drought condition, that they were away at Kerala and that is why they were not able to furnish the stamp papers in time. The delay is also very negligible and they have filed the restoration petition within about twenty days. The Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and it has committed an error in not adverting to the averment made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 341 of 1983.
4. For all these reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the Court below is set aside and the Copy Application, which was struck off on 25th March, 1983 will stand restored to file. There will be no order as to costs.