COMMON ORDER

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the Revision Petitioner as Plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2010 has filed a suit for bare injunction against the Defendants The suit was proceeded and the same was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff on 03.10.2013. Aggrieved by the decree granted in favour of the Plaintiff, the Defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2013. In the appeal, the learned Sub-Judge, Gudiyattam had remanded the suit back to the learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam to decide the title. After remand, the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.224 of 2016 for amendment of the plaint which was posted for several adjournments. The Defendant had filed counter on 23.08.2016 and it was adjourned to several days to hear the enquiry. Subsequently, on 06.10.2016 enquiry heard and reserved for orders. On 19.10.2016, orders was not pronounced instead it was suo motto re-opened for clarification and again adjourned on several hearings on 26.04.2017. On

29.04.2017, the suit was dismissed for default.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that to hear enquiry, the presence of the parties are not necessary. In this c