IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C., a defendant may be given an opportunity to defend the suit by setting aside an ex parte order, subject to terms and conditions.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.08.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Court, Lalgudi and allow this Civil Revision Petition.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.13 of 2018 dated 05.08.2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Lalgudi, dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondent as plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking recovery of possession directing the defendants 1 to 21, 23 to 26 and 27 to surrender possession of the suit property after removing the unauthorized construction made by the 21st defendant and for payment of past and future profits and for permanent injunction restraining the 22nd defendant/ Government of Tamil Nadu from issuing C-Form license to the defendants 21 and 27. The revision petitioner, who is the 19th defendant, after the receipt of suit summons, has not turned up for the first hearing on 19.07.2000 and hence, she was called absent and set ex parte. Since the suit is pending, the revision petitioner/19th defendant has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.07.2000.

3. The case of the revision petitioner/19th defendant is that the revision petitioner/19th defendant has purchased 8.76 acres of land in Old S.F.No.15, New S.F.No.12 on 27.03.1979 along with her father Subramaniyan and mother Smt.Lalitha Subramaniyan, that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since their purchase, that her parents were shown as defendants 17 and 18 in the above suit, that her father died on 22.12.1999 and her mother died on 12.09.2006, that the revision petitioner/19th defendant is the only legal heir and she is the sole legal heir to inherit the property, that the above case has been transferred to Lalgudi and sent for mediation, that the revision petitioner/19th defendant has not received any communication with regard to the transfer or the mediation date and as such, she could not appear before the Court, that her advocate has written a letter about the transfer of suit to Lalgudi, that even that letter has not been received by her, that when she approached her lawyer, she came to know about the ex parte order, that she was set ex parte on 19.07.2000 and that since the revision petitioner/19th defendant got a good case on merits, she was constrained to file the above application for setting aside the ex parte order. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter statement stating that the averments raised in the affidavit are all false, that the revision petitioner/ 19th defendant has not filed any document in support of her claim, that when the revision petitioner/19th defendant has claimed title to the suit property, the above evasive reasons clearly proved that the revision petitioner/19th defendant only in order to drag the matter let the suit for ex parte, that the above matter was posted for further cross-examination and that therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 dismissing the application. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property is belonging to the respondent/plaintiff Idol, that it was originally a Minor Inam land under title deed No.1114, that the suit property was granted to the respondent/plaintiff Idol as a Devadhayam Grant and the same was granted for the purpose of rendering Sripatham Thangi Service to the respondent/plaintiff Idol, that after the abolishment of Minor Inam, suo moto proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar in Lalgudi Taluk and a conditional patta was granted to the ancestors of the defendants 1 to 16 under Section 8(2)(i