JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 04.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.402 of 2016 in O.S.No.73 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 04.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.402 of 2016 in O.S.No.73 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants 4 to 6 in the original suit and the petitioners in the I.A. petition and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the original suit and the respondent in the I.A. Petition.

3. The respondent herein has filed a mortgage suit for recovery of money against the husband of the first petitioner. An exparte decree was passed on 13.04.2009 and a final decree petition was filed. The husband of the first petitioner filed a vakalat, subsequently, he died on 30.07.2010 and thereafter, the petitioners were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased in the final decree proceedings. On 14.09.2014, the final decree petition was allowed. The petitioners herein filed a petition, in I.A.No.402 of 2016, to condone the delay of 2717 days in filing a petition, to set aside the exparte decree and the delay excuse petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the same, the revision petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The respondent herein has filed a mortgage suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.134 of 2008, before the Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur, subsequently, the case was transferred to Sub Court, Sivakasi and was re-numbered as O.S.No.73 of 2010, the revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. They filed a I.A. petition for condoning the delay in filing a set aside petition.

5. Brief substance of the petition, in I.A.No.402 of 2016, is as follows:-

5.1. The deceased-Rajasekar / first defendant in the original suit, was the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second and third petitioners. The respondent filed a suit against the husband of the first petitioner and his brothers. On 13.04.2009, as there was no representation on the side of the defendants, an exparte preliminary decree was passed. The first defendant was ill at that time, and due to heavy loss in his business, he was not able to spend for the medical expenses and he died on 30.07.2010. The petitioners were impleaded as respondents 4 to 6, in the final decree petition, in I.A.No.129 of 2010.

5.2. The petitioners approached the defendants 2 and 3 and then, they came to know that all the three defendants were running a Company viz., M/s. Rajasekar Timber Tippo and that the Company obtained a mortgage loan from the plaintiff. On the information by the defendants 2 and 3, the petitioners filed their counter in I.A.No.129 of 2010 and thereafter, the petitioners came to know that the defendants 2 and 3 misguided them. During the last week of September – 2016, a notice of attachment was pasted on the door steps of the petitioners. Again, the petitioners approached the defendants 2 and 3 and they informed that the suit property was allotted to the share of the first defendant-Rajasekar in the family partition and it was the duty of the petitioners to repay the mortgage loan and to safe guard the house. The loan was obtained for the benefit of the partnership firm, but, the entire loan was burdened on the first defendant. The mortgaged house was cunningly allotted to the first defendant and the defendants 2 and 3 escaped from their liabilities. 5.3. The defendants 1 to 3 have no right to mortgage the suit property and the suit property was the ancestral property of the defendants. On the date of mortgage, the second petitioner was major and the third petitioner was a minor and the first defendant was entitled only for 1/3rd share in the property.

5.4. The suit prop