1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in I.A.No.1369 of 2010 in I.A.No. 471 of 2009 in O.S.No.249 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore, wherein and whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 CPC praying for deciding the preliminary issue of maintainability of I.A.No. 471 of 2009 was allowed. The said I.A.No. 471 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1796 days in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte decree passed against one V.M.Narayanamurthy and Kupendiran Naidu, who were the defendants in O.S.No. 249 of 2003.

2. The short facts that are necessary for consideration of this Court in this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

The respondent herein as the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 249 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vellore against one V.M.Narayanamurthy and Kupendiran Naidu seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their men, agents and subordinates from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The said suit came to be decreed on 26.2.2004 by the trial Court by setting the defendants exparte. Thereafter, the petitioner herein being a third party to the said suit, filed I.A.No. 471 of 2009 on 26.2.2009, that is exactly after five years from the date of the judgment and decree, under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of the delay of 1796 days in filing Order 9 Rule 13 application to set aside the exparte decree passed on 26.2.2004. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first defendant in the said suit viz., V.M.Narayanamurhty sold the suit property to the petitioner on 14.7.2003 under a registered sale deed and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, right from the date of purchase and the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property.

3. A counter affidavit was filed in the said application by the respondent herein contending that the petitioner herein has no right or locus standi to file the petition. It is also specifically denied by the respondent herein that the petitioner did not purchase the suit property from the first defendant and no possession was handed over to the petitioner as contended by him. It is the further contention of the respondent that he alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years by having right and interest over the same. After filing the said counter, the respondent herein also filed I.A.No. 1367 of 2010 seeking for deciding the preliminary issue of maintainability of I.A.No. 471 of 2009 by contending that the petitioner herein being not a party to the suit, cannot file I.A.No. 471 of 2009 and as such it is not maintainable. Therefore, the respondent herein prayed for deciding the preliminary issue of maintainability first. The petitioner herein filed a counter in the said I.A.No. 1367 of 2010 and contested the same.

4. The Court below after considering the respective pleadings of the parties and the submissions made on behalf of them allowed the application by observing that the exparte decree passed was not against the petitioner herein and he was not a party in the above suit and as such he has no right to file application under Section 5 the Limitation Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner had purchased the suit property from the first defendant during the pendency of the proceedings, all the rights available to the vendor of the petitioner, are also available to the petitioner as the purchaser pendente lite . Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code permits the proceedings to be continued by the representative of the original parties and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to