The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of the preliminary decree, the need for sufficiency of cause to condone delay, and the principle that deliberate delay cannot be condoned for the sake of substantial justice.

(PRAYER: Revision filed against the order dated 14.06.2002, made in E.P.No.66/1998 in O.S.No.376/1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District.

PRAYER: Revision filed against the order-dated 03.06.2002, made in E.P.No.66/1998 in O.S.No.376/1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District.

PRAYER: Revision filed against the order-dated 09.09.2002, made in I.A.No.11/1995 in O.S.No.376/1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District.

PRAYER: Revision filed against the order dated 09.09.2002, made in I.A.No.11/1995 in O.S.No.376/1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District.)

Common Order:

Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.1178, 1646/2002 are directed against the order of delivery of possession, made in E.P.No.66/1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramathy.

2. Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.35 and 199/2003 are directed against the Order of dismissal made in I.A.No.11/ 1995, declining to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Preliminary Decree.

3. Since common points for determination arise in these Revision Petitions, all the Revision Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this common Order. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in their original rank in the suit.

4. The Suit and execution proceedings are fraught with several rounds of Interlocutory Applications in the lower Court. For proper appreciation of the points raised and for disposal of these Revision Petitions, it is necessary to refer to the various proceedings in the trial Court and Executing Court.

5. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.152/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal for partition. Exparte Preliminary Decree was passed on 04.01.1995.

I.A.No.11/1995 and I.A.No.12/1995 :-

6. Defendants have filed the Petitions I.A.No.264/95 and 265/95, Sub Court, Namakkal to condone the delay of 32 days and the Petition to set aside the exparte Preliminary Decree. Those applications were transferred to District Munsif Court, Paramathy and renumbered as I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 1995. Those applications were dismissed for default on 13.11.1995.

I.A.No.1192/1996 :-

7. Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1192/2006 for passing the Final Decree. On 21.11.1997, Final Decree was passed. No appeal was filed against the Final Decree. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed E.P.No.66/1998 for delivery of possession as per the Final Decree.

8. Defendants have filed E.A.Nos.5/1999, 6/1999 and 7/1999 – applications under Or.21 R.106 CPC to set aside the exparte order passed against them in the Execution Proceedings. Applications R.E.A.Nos.7/1999 and 9/1999 were allowed and exparte Order in the Execution Proceedings passed against the Defendants was set side. After hearing both parties, holding that the Defendants have not filed any appeal against Final Decree, the Court has ordered delivery of possession. Challenging that Order made in E.P.No.66/ 1998, the Revision Petitioners have filed C.R.P.No.1178/2002 and C.R.P.No.1646/2002.

I.A.No.573/1999 ::-

9. The Defendants were served in the Execution Proceedings. At that time, the Defendants have filed I.A.No.573/1999 to condone the delay of 1160 days in filing the Petition in restoring I.A.No.11/1995. That application was allowed and the delay was condoned. Thereafter, the application for restoration was numbered as I.A.No.456/2001 and the same was allowed on 20.03.2002, ordering restoration of I.A.No.11/1995. After restoration, I.A.No.11/1995 was dismissed by the Order dated 09.09.2002, which is challenged in C.R.P.Nos.35 and 199 of 2003.

10. I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 1995 were dismissed by the impugned order mainly on the grounds – firstly that the Petitioners had not taken steps to implead the legal representatives of the Petitioners 1 to 8 and the Petition as against 1 to 8 abated. Secondly, it was obs