The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC and the requirement for a proper explanation for the delay in filing a review petition.

1. The petitioners filed O.S.No.357 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, for partition of their half share in the suit property and the suit was decreed. The defendants 1, 3 to 5 preferred first Appeal in A.S.No.392 of 1995 before this Court and the first Appeal was allowed in Part on 10.8.2007. The petitioners herein aggrieved by the orders passed in A.S.No.392 of 1995 filed Review Petition No.159 of 2007 to review the judgment rendered in A.S.No.392 of 1995 and that Review Petition was later dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The petitioners filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 made in A.S.No.392 of 1995 and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 31.3.2008 and the Review Petition preferred against the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed and the attempts made by the petitioners to prefer a Curative Petition also failed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Review Petition in S.R.No.94580 of 2011 to review the Judgment and decree made in A.S.No.392 of 1995 dated 10.8.2007 along with M.P.No.1 of 2012 to condone the delay of 1500 days in filing the Review Application.

3. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Review Petition on the ground that the earlier Review Petition, namely, Review Petition No.159 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn and no liberty was given and therefore, the present Review Petition is not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that no acceptable reasons were stated in the affidavit by the petitioners to condone the delay of 1500 days and the first petitioner who was prosecuting the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court from 2011 onwards cannot plead ignorance about the Court procedures and therefore, the delay was not properly explained. The respondents 1 and 3 also filed a counter opposing the Petition to condone the delay.

4. As the maintainability of Review Petition was also raised by the respondents 1 and 3 and they also opposed the Petition to condone the delay, I decided to hear parties on both aspects and the both the learned counsel submitted their arguments in that regard.

5. Mr.M.N.S.Mohamed Habeed Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Appeal before this Court was conducted by the son of the first petitioner who was the second respondent in A.S.No.392 of 1995 and he died on 27.10.2007, immediately, after the judgment rendered in A.S.No.392 of 1995, and, therefore, the first petitioner was not properly advised and she was bona fidely prosecuting the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition at the admission stage, she made arrangements to file Review Petition and after the dismissal of the Review Petition, a Curative Petition was filed. But, unfortunately, the counsel at Delhi did not take proper steps to pursue the Curative Petition and those facts came to the knowledge of the first petitioner only in August, 2011 and immediately, thereafter, a Copy Application was filed on 26.8.2011 for getting certified copy of the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.392 of 1995 and the same was made ready on 28.2.2011 and after collecting papers from the counsel who conducted Appeal, the present Review Petition was filed through a new counsel on 25.10.2011 and therefore, the delay of 1500 days had happened in filing the Review Application. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners were diligently prosecuting the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after coming to know that the proceedings in the Hon'ble Supreme court were dismissed, steps were taken to file the Review Petition before this Court. He, therefore, submitted that the delay may be condoned as there is no wilful default on the part of the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the p