O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.638 of 2016 in O.S.No.424 of 2003 dated 11.08.2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ambattur, thereby, dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 1,003 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order passed in O.S.No.424 of 2003 dated 25.06.2013.

2. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent filed suit as against the respondents 2 to 9 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 5 from granting approval for the suit property produced by the second respondent herein and for mandatory injunction directing the seventh and eighth respondents herein to effect the transfer of Patta in the name of the first respondent herein in respect of the suit property and also permanent injunction. Pending the suit, the first respondent filed a petition to implead the petitioner as one of the defendants and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to file his written statement and as such, he was set ex- parte and decree was passed on 25.06.2013. The petitioner's counsel fell ill and his juniors also failed to follow up the matter. Therefore, the petitioner could not able to file his written statement in time and he was set ex-parte on 25.06.2013. He had absolutely no knowledge about the ex-parte order and as such there is a delay. In fact, the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code does not require any limitation and even then as an abandon caution the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay of

1,003 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order.

3. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the first respondent has absolutely no title over the suit property. He claims the suit property by way of Patta stands in the name of his father. After his demise, other legal heirs viz., sisters executed a release deed in respect of their 3/4th share in favour of the first respondent herein. Only on the strength of the release deed, the first respondent filed the original suit. He has no title over the property and the suit itself is frivolous and vexatious one. Therefore, the petitioner has got valid defense and he may be given one more opportunity to defend the suit.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 to 7 and 8 submitted that pending the suit, the second respondent herein, through his Power Agent, sold out the suit property in favour of the petitioner herein by the sale deed dated 20.12.2017. On the same day, the said property was sold out to other parties by the petitioner herein. Therefore, he wantonly set him as ex-parte before the trial Court and had knowledge about the ex-parte order, he sold out the properties. So, he was impleaded as one of the defendants and thereafter, for the past 3 years he did not choose to file his written statement. Without filing any written statement, he sold out the suit property. In fact, after dismissal of his petition, he sold out the property, after obtaining interim order from this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, learned Government Advocate(CS) appearing for the third to seventh respondents and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the eighth respondent.

6. The petitioner is the 10th defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent herein. The first respondent filed suit as against the respondents

2 to 9 for the following reliefs:-

(a) for permanent injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 from granting approval for the suit property produced by the 1st defendant.

(b) for Mandatory injunction directing 6 & 7th defendants to effect transfer of the Patta in the name of the plaintiff.

(c) for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant his men agents, servants representatives o