The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside an ex-parte decree and the procedure to be followed in such cases.

1. The defendant in O.S.No.430 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee is the petitioner in the present revision. The respondent, who filed the suit as plaintiff for permanent injunction, is none other than the husband of the revision petitioner. The suit was filed by him for permanent injunction not to alienate the suit property in favour of any third party.

2. It is not in dispute that the suit property stands in the name of the revision petitioner/defendant. Along with the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction which was taken on file as I.A.No.525 of 2013. Though the trial Court ordered summons to be served on the revision petitioner/defendant by 23.12.2010 and the trial Court ordered notice in the injunction application returnable by 23.12.2010, it also permitted the respondent herein/plaintiff to serve notice privately. The respondent herein, on the hearing date, chose to file an affidavit of service enclosing a postal acknowledgment in proof of service of private notice in the injunction application. Accepting the same to be proof of due service of notice in the injunction application, the learned trial Judge chose to post the injunction application on 27.01.2011 for enquiry after setting the respondent therein ex-parte. Without verifying whether summons in the suit was served on the defendant, the learned trial Judge chose to set the defendant ex-parte by order dated 23.12.2010 and adjourned the matter to 27.01.2011 for ex-parte evidence. On 27.01.2011, at the request of the plaintiff, both the suit and the application were adjourned to 03.02.2011. On 03.02.2011, proof affidavit of the plaintiff was received and the documents referred to in the proof affidavit were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5 and the learned trial Judge pronounced an ex-parte judgment granting the decree as prayed for with costs. Simultaneously, the learned trial Judge chose to pass an order in the injunction application granting injunction and allowing the said application.

3. Under the said circumstances, the defendant in the said suit, who is the present revision petitioner, chose to file an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 03.02.2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. It had been contended in the supporting affidavit that no summon was served on the defendant and the application was filed in time after the petitioner got knowledge of the decree and that and even then, by way of abundant caution, the defendant was advised to file the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

4. The learned trial Judge, who heard the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was taken on file as I.A.No.525 of 2013, chose to dismiss the same by order dated 26.08.2013 holding that the petitioner had notice of the pendency of the case in December 2010 itself and that the inordinate delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree stood unexplained. Impugning the said order, the defendant has filed the present revision on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of revision.

5. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel. This Court, after admitting the Civil Revision Petition, issued notice to the trial Court for submission of the records for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the records of the original suit submitted by the trial Court are available for the consideration of this Court.

6. The arguments advanced by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel arguing on behalf of the counsel on record for the petitioner and by Mr.R.Venkatavaradhan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused.

7. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein and