The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show sufficient cause for condoning delay, considering the conduct, behavior, and attitude of the party and the length of delay.

1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.896 of 2011 in O.S.No.189 of 1996 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur, the present revision is filed.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as 9th defendant in O.S.No.189 of 1996. The respondents have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit property. The petitioner was set ex-parte and a preliminary decree was passed on 19.02.2007. The decree holder filed I.A.No.482 of 2008 for passing final decree. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to divide the property by meats and bounds and on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, final decree was passed on 21.01.2010.

3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.895 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the preliminary decree and I.A.No.896 of 2011 to condone the delay of 565 days in filing the application to set aside the final decree. The petitioner has filed the applications contending that she came to know about the ex-parte final decree only after receiving the notice in execution petition and that her brothers informed her that they would follow up the case and she was on the hope that her brothers would look after the Court proceedings.

4. Resisting the applications, the respondents have filed a detailed counter. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hosur, dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed two applications in I.A.Nos.895 and 896 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree, the respondents had filed counter only to I.A.No.895 of 2011 and filed a memo in I.A.No.896 of 2011 to adopt the counter filed in I.A.No.895 of 2011; that the counter filed in I.A.No.895 of 2011 cannot be taken into account to consider the averments made in I.A.No.896 of 2011. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has specifically stated that she did not receive notice in the final decree proceedings and therefore the delay has to be condoned and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to defend the case.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was a minor aged about 14 years at the time of filing of the suit and after she attained majority, the petitioner filed an application to declare her as major in I.A.No.206 of 1999 and the petition was ordered on 31.03.1999. The defendants 1 to 8 are parents, brothers and sisters of the petitioner and they have engaged a common advocate to defend their case. It is further contended that the suit was filed in the year 1996 and it was listed for trial on 08.06.2000. On that date, P.W.1 was examined and the case was adjourned to 12.06.2000 for cross-examination of P.W.1, the defendants remained ex-parte, so a decree was passed on 12.06.2000. Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 9 filed I.A.No.817 of 2000 to set aside the ex-parte decree and it was allowed. Subsequently, in the year 2002, the defendants were set ex-parte and on an application, the ex-parte decree was set aside. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was aware of the entire suit proceedings and this petition is filed only to drag on the litigation endlessly.

7. It is seen from the records that the respondents had filed the suit for partition and separate possession on 06.10.1995. The petitioner was arrayed as 9th defendant in the suit and she filed written statement along with the defendants 1 to 8. It is not in dispute that the defendants 1 to 8 are the parents, brothers and sisters of the petitioner herein. It is further noted that when the suit was posted on 12.06.2000 for cross-examination of P.W.1, the defendants failed to cross examine the witness, hence an ex-parte decree was passed against them. The def