ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed against fair and decretal order passed in IA.No.285 of 2015 in OS.No.6 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Poonamallee dated 09.12.2016 thereby dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

2. The petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent for partition. Originally, the suit was filed before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur by the first respondent for partition. No summon was served for the reason that paper publication was effected. After effecting paper publication, the defendants 1, 2 and 4 were set exparte on 11.11.2011. Thereafter, the case was posted for framing of issues on several occasions. Again, the suit was transferred from the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur to the file of the II Additional District Court at Poonamallee. After transfer of the suit, the suit was posted for framing issues and framed issues and exparte decree was passed on 17.09.2013. On the strength of the preliminary decree, the first respondent filed petition for final decree, in which the petitioner was served notice. The first respondent also entered his appearance before the final decree application on 25.04.2014. Thereafter on 25.08.2014, the petitioner filed petition to set aside the exparte decree with delay and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was never served any summon and only on paper publication, he was set exparte on 11.11.2011. In fact, he fell ill due to jaundice and went for native and had taken native treatment. Therefore, he could not able to produce any medical records to substantiate his cause. However, after receipt of notice in the final decree application, he entered his appearance and filed petition to set aside the exparte decree with delay of 448 days in filing the petition. He further submitted that the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013 itself is not in consonance with Order 20 Rule (4 (2)) & 5 of CPC. It is a non speaking judgment and as such it is ex facie illegal. The court below passed cryptic judgment without even answering any point. Therefore, the petitioner may be given opportunity to defend his case on merits and in accordance with law. In fact, he is the auction purchaser in the auction conducted by the fourth respondent herein on 25.02.2005 itself. The first respondent had full knowledge about the purchase of the suit property by the petitioner and even then, she did not challenge the sale deed and simply filed the suit for partition. The second respondent herein borrowed loan from the fourth respondent by mortgaging the suit property. Thereafter, she defaulted in repayment of loan amount and as such the fourth respondent brought the property for sale in the auction. Therefore, the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property and he has valid defence to defend the suit filed by the first respondent for partition. Therefore, he may be given one more opportunity to defend the suit. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) G.Selvam and others Vs. Kasthuri (deceased) & others reported in 2015 (4) CTC 673

(ii) Navniram Development Consultants (I) Pvt.Ltd., Pune Vs. Divisional Commissioner & President District Sports Complex, Executive Committee, Pune reported in 2018 (3) CTC 303

(iii) Rabin Thapa Vs. Rohit Dora reported in 2019 (6) CTC 344

(iv) R.S.Swarnam Vs. Ratnam & others reported in 2019 (6) CTC 427

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit filed by her for partition. When he declined to receive summons in the suit, the first respondent was permitted for paper publication. Thereafter, paper publication was effected. Even then, the petitioner did not appear before the trial co