ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This Revision petition is filed against the order passed in I.A.No. 1456 of 2018 in O.S.No. 286 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni dated 18.04.2022 dismissing the application to condone the delay of two (2) weeks under Section 5 of the limitation Act in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 23.01.2018 in O.S.No. 286 of

2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The trial court observed in the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 as follows:

“Though the suit pertained to the rights involved in the immovable Property, the petitioner/Defendant No. 4 did not evince any interest to show a proper and sufficient cause in his Affidavit, for filing the Petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C with a delay. The suit was filed for sought relief of partition, and Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 7 were engaged an Advocate, but they failed to file written statement with in stipulated period, and filing written statement was forfeited. In above suit, Exparty decreed was passed on 23.01.2018. As seen from the records, Final decree petition was filed on 04.04.2018. Defendant No. 4 & 5 had engaged an Advocate & he filed Vakalat on 08.06.2018 and filed their counter on 05.10.2018. The present petition filed on 07.09.2018. It clears that before filing counter, & after three months from filing Vakalat the present petition was filed. Even the petitioners/Defendant did not file present petition after filing Vakalat in Final Decree petition. Even they did not file medical records to show the 5th Defendant was suffered with paralysis disease. It is clear that the „Sufficient Cause‟, as required under the provisions of the section 5 of Limitation Act, is not shown and explained in the Affidavit of the Petitioner/Defendant No. 4.

So, by virtue of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the delay of 228 days in filling the Petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC., by the petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 cannot be condoned, as there is no sufficient cause for the same.

Hence, the Point is answered against the Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1 to 7.”

3. Since the petitioners also participated in the final decree proceedings and as observed by the court below they have filed the application to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree immediately after receipt of notice of final decree proceedings, this Court does not interfere with the orders passed by the court below as it was dismissed by the court below with a sound reason.

4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Interim orders, if any, deemed to have been vacated.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

11.08.2023

UPS