2015 (9) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.448 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, against the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy, praying for a decree of declaration that the notice dated 20 September, 2007, issued by the Commercial Tax Department, is illegal and void and a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said notice. 3. The suit was contested by the second respondent by filing a detailed written statement. The second respondent has taken up a specific contention with regard to the maintainability of the suit. 4. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. 5. The petitioner filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....false reasons given by the petitioner made the learned Trial judge to dismiss the application. 9. The learned Principal District Judge considered the affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.246 of 2013, in the light of the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge. The learned Appellate Judge very clearly held that the petitioner invented new reasons to suit his convenience. The petitioner has given one reason in O.S.No.388 of 2007 for his absence and another reason to restore the connected suit in O.S.No.448 of 2007. The petitioner has not given any explanation with regard to the contradictory stand taken by him. I am, therefore, of the view the the learned Appellate Judge was perfectly correct in dismissing the appeal. ....