O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendants in O.S.No.128

of 2014 before the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruppattur, who are the Revision

Petitioners herein.

2.Brief facts which are relevant to decide this Civil Revision Petition are as follows :- a) The suit was filed for partition by the Respondent/Plaintiff.

b) It is the case of the Petitioners that the suit property was already bequeathed to the 1st Petitioner by his father during his life time and the 1st Petitioner's enjoying the same as a rightful owner.

c) The 2nd Petitioner is the mother of the 1st Petitioner.

d) The Plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2014 is the daughter of the 2nd

Petitioner and sister of the 1st Petitioner. She has no right to claim partition.

3.Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that

Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte. Therefore, to set aside ex parte, I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was filed by the Petitioners as Defendants 1 and 2. When I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was posted for enquiry on 13.06.2016, there was no representation for the Petitioners as the Advocates were on boycott. The 1st Petitioner is employed and resides in Chennai and the 2nd Petitioner is aged 80 years and due to her advanced age and health issues, she was unable to travel up to

Tiruppattur from Chennai. Therefore, on 13.06.2016, the Petition in

I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was dismissed.

4.I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was filed by the

Defendants in O.S.No.128 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte decree passed against Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 dated 15.09.2015. Since I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was dismissed on 13.06.2016, to restore the Petition in I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014, the Petition to be filed under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC, to restore the I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014, there was a delay of 349 days. Therefore, the Petition under I.A.No.522 of 2017 in I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was filed to condone the delay in filing the Petition under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC. The Petition under I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was filed to restore the Petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of CPC, to set aside the ex parte decree dated 15.09.2015 in O.S.No.128 of 2014. The Petition under I.A.No.522 of 2017 in I.A.No.193 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 was resisted by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2014 and the Decree Holder in O.S.No.128 of 2014, stating that the Petition had been filed wantonly to cause harassment to the

Plaintiff/Decree Holder, thereby preventing the Decree Holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that in continuation of the preliminary decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.128 of 2014, the Plaintiff as Decree Holder had filed Petition for a final decree, in which notice was also served on the Respondents/Defendants in O.S.No.128 of 2014 and they are aware of the final decree proceedings. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, he had visited the suit property and filed report. Based on the report, final decree is to be passed. The Petitioners herein as Respondents in the final decree application had wantonly filed this Petition only to cause harassment to the Plaintiff/Decree Holder. The reason stated in the Petition is not at all acceptable.

5.It is the contention of the Plaintiff in the suit that the suit property is to be divided into 1/3rd share and a preliminary decree has already been passed granting 1/3rd share to the Plaintiff. In continuation of the same, final decree application is pending before the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruppattur. On perusal of the records maintained in the Trial Court, the learned Judge had dismissed the Petition stating that if the Defendants had good case to succeed they would have participated in the suit proceeding in O.S.No.128 of 2014, they had not done so, they had filed a Petition to set aside the ex parte decree