There is no limitation period for an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC, allowing defendants to seek permission to participate even after significant delays.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the order and decretal order passed in I.A. No.1048 of 2016 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 dated 22.11.2016 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, thereby, allowing the petition to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the first respondent is one of the defendants. The petitioners filed the said suit for partition. Pending, the suit, the deceased/second defendant failed to appear before the trial Court on 11.02.1998 and as such, he was set ex-parte. He fell ill, due to diabetic. In fact, some of the fingers on his both legs amputated and after his sons and daughters marriage no one is there to look after him. Therefore, he could not be able to appear before the trial Court and failed to file his written statement. He filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code with a condone delay petition. There was a delay of 6,210 days in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte order. The Court below allowed the petition on the ground that the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, does not prescribe any limitation period and as such, allowed the petition, on costs, of Rs.3,000/- payable by the first respondent/deceased to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone the delay petition are not shown any sufficient cause. In fact, the deceased/second defendant was well aware of the suit filed by the petitioners for partition. Though he underwent surgery and some of his fingers on his both legs were removed, nothing prevented him to engage a counsel on his behalf to appear before the trial Court. He further submitted that the petition filed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case on hand. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1925 Mad 1274 (Gokarakonda Venkatasubbiah -vs- Daliparthi Lakshminarasimham), AIR 1955 SC 425 (Sangram Singh -vs- Election Tribunal and other), AIR 1964 SC 993 (Arjun Singh -vs- Mohindra Kumar and others), 1989 (2) MLJ 259 (Palani Nathan -vs- Devanai Ammal), 1997 (1) MLJ 37 (Pilla Reddy -vs- Thimmaraya Reddy), 2015-3- L.W.332 (Visalakshi -vs- Umapathy) and 2020 6 CTC 724 (Rajasekar -vs- Govindammal (Late).

4. He vehemently contended that this Court in the judgment reported in 2015-3-L.W.332 (Visalakshi -vs- Umapathy) held that for filing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code no limitation is prescribed. It does not mean that an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte order can be filed at any point of time viz., even after several years. Therefore, under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is prescribed as three years. After referring the above judgment, this Court recently held in the case of (Rajasekar -vs- Govindammal (late) reported in 2020 (6) CTC 724 as follows:-

“16. The point that would arise for determination in this Revision is, as to whether, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply to an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and others, reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 , referred to supra, had clearly held that there is no limitation for filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the language of the provision itsel