ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 22.07.2019 passed in I.A. No.339 of 2018 in O.S.

No.67 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court in the Original Suit and in appropriate places, their ranking in the present petition would be indicated. 3. The revision petitioner is the 6th defendant in the suit in O.S.

No.67/2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore. The suit was filed by one Malliga. The said Malliga and the 3rd defendant are the daughters of one Ponnusamy Mandiri and Mangathai alias Mangai Ammal of Brahmmapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. The defendants 1 & 2 and one Duraisamy are the sons of this couple. The said Duraisamy expired leaving behind defendants 4 to 6 as his legal heirs. Items 1 & 2 in the schedule of properties were owned by Mangathai @ Mangai Ammal while items 3 to 13 were owned by Ponnusamy Mandiri. The said Ponnusamy Mandiri died intestate on 28.11.1984 and his wife Mangathai died intestate on 10.12.2003. The contention of the plaintiff in the Original Suit was that after the demise of their parents the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 and the said Duraisamy were each entitled to 1/5 share in the suit properties and since Duraisamy also expired, the defendants 4 to 6 who were his legal heirs were entitled to his 1/5 share. The plaintiff, in order to prevent the other defendants from fraudulently creating any settlement deed/release deed to deprive her of her share of the property, filed this suit for partition of the suit property into 5 equal shares and to allot one such share to her and for mesne profits apart from claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties.

4. The Principal District Judge, Vellore, during the course of trial referred the suit to Lok adalat for settlement on 27.06.2018 which was returned by the District Legal Service Authority, Vellore, on 14.07.2018 with an endorsement as not settled. Subsequently, on 18.07.2018 based on a joint compromise memo duly signed by all the parties, a compromise decree was passed by the Court on the same day i.e 18.07.2018.

5. Thereafter, the 6th defendant in the suit filed an I.A.

No.339/2018 in O.S. No.67 of 2013 before the Principal District Judge, Vellore, contending that her thumb impression on the joint compromise memo was obtained by her counsel making her believe that she would be eligible for a share in the suit properties. However, she came to know later that she was not allotted any share much against her desire. According to her, she is one of the legal heirs of her father Duraisamy who himself was eligible for 1/5th of the share of her grand parents or in other words late Duraisamy's parents who were the original owners of the suit properties. In such circumstances the 6th defendant has filed the I.A. seeking for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree allegedly passed in O.S. No.67/13. According to her the Court passed the ex parte decree on 18.07.2018 and that she is neither aware of any joint memo of compromise nor about the case being referred to the Lok adalat before settlement.

6. The trial court in I.A. No.339 of 2018 has observed as under:

"On analysing the points put forth by both counsels and on perusal of records , it is crystal clear that the matter has been settled in Lok Adalat on 14.07.2018 in the presence of all parties including this petitioner. Then, based on Lok Adalath settlement, the final decree was passed by this court on 18.07.2017. In such situation of this petitioner appeared and acknowledgements, the settlement was made and final decree was passed. Hence, now, he cannot question the same by way of this petition. In spite, he could take legal steps. So, this petition has no merits and deserves to b