The court reinforced the necessity of justifying delays in applications to set aside ex-parte decrees while emphasizing the need to decide matters based on merits.

ORDER :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Common Order dated December 11, 2018, passed in I.A. Nos.140 and 141 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, the respondents in the Interlocutory Applications who are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit, have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Case of the plaintiffs, who have filed the Suit in representative capacity as indicated in the cause title, is that an extent of 12 Acre 25 Cents in Survey No.45 of Thangi Village is the suit property. The suit property belongs to the first defendant - Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple represen- ted by its Executive Officer. In the last week of July 1994, the second de- fendant / Special Tahsildhar, Kancheepuram, visited the suit property with surveyor and surveyed about 4 Acres of land on the western side thereof. When enquired by the then trustee of the Arulmigu Kailasanadhar Temple - P.Padmanaban, it came to light that the sixth defendant has recommended on March 12, 1994 to make house site plots in the suit property for washer- men’s community people, at the instance of defendants 2 and 3. The trustees of the Temple and the village people filed an objection before fourth defendant that no temple land could be sold or made use for different object other than that for which it is held by the Temple. Since the plaintiffs are worshippers having interest in the Temple, they are entitled to protect the Temple property/suit property, as the defendants 4 to 7 failed to protect the same. Hence the Suit for permanent injunction not to plot out or make house sites in the suit property and not to accord permission or sanction for the said purpose or sale.

4. That being the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants entered appearance through Government Pleader - Mr.G.Manimaaran. Despite sufficient opportunities, the defendants did not file written statement and hence, they were called absent, set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on December 16, 2005.

5. Subsequently, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in I.A. No.141 of 2016 to condone the delay of 3477 days. Sim- ilarly, the third defendant filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree along with a Application in I.A. No.140 of 2016 to condone the delay of 3477 days. They were all filed on the same day viz., November 24, 2015.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.141 of 2016, it has been stated that when the case was posted on June 27, 2005 for filing written statement, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 could not appear before Court as some case papers relating to the case were misplaced and their Counsel could not be contacted for filing written statement. In these circumstances, an ex-parte decree was passed on June 27, 2005. According to defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7, this is the reason behind the delay of 3477 days.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.140 of 2016, it has been stated that when the case was posted on December 16, 2005 for filing written statement, on that day the third defendant / President of Washermen Association was suffering from high fever and hence, he could not appear before Court and could not contact his Counsel. In these circumstances, an ex-parte decree was passed on December 16, 2005.

8. In I.A. No.141 of 2016, the Executive Officer of first defendant - Temple