O R D E R

The revision petition is preferred by the 1^st defendant against the order dated 18.09.2017 made in C.M.A.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the of the Additional District Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2017 made in I.A.No.357 of 2016 in O.S.No.65 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Perundurai st

2.The 1 respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition for the following relief:

a. To divide the suit properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 1 such share to the plaintiff separately and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff;

b. To appoint a commissioner to divide the suit properties as aforesaid; c. Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents or any one acting for them or on their behalf from alienating or encumbering the suit properties till the final partition is effected;

d. Directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff;

e. And granting such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.

st

3.The revision petitioner/1 defendant was called absent and set ex parte on 24.07.2015 for non appearance. He then filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the order imposing condition to pay the cost of Rs.500/- in I.A.No.359 of 2015 filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 14.07.2015. The trial Court in the impugned st order has stated that the 1 defendant who is the appellant in C.M.A.No.10 of 2017 failed to file the written statement on 11.10.2014 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Perundurai, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2017 preferred by the revision petitioner, the learned Additional District Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, passed the following orders:

''7. It is noticed that, this Appellant received the summons in the suit (date not clearly mentioned in the order of the trial Court) in the month of June 2014. He failed to file the st written statement till 11.10.2014. The present Appellant/1 defendant was set ex parte by the trial Court. This st Appellant/1 defendant filed petition to set ex parte under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC before the trial Court, that petition was numbered in I.A.No.359/2015 and was ordered to be allowed on payment of cost a sum of st Rs.500/- on or before 14.07.2015. The Appellant/1 defendant failed to pay the cost and that petition was dismissed by the trial Court, then passed the preliminary st decree. When the Appellant/1 defendant was set ex parte and at the time of I.A.359 of 2015 was pending, the written st statement of Appellant/1 defendant filed before the trial st Court. There is no locus standi to the Appellant/1 defendant to file the written statement before the trial Court when I.A.No.359 of 2015 was pending. It cannot be considered as the written statement legally filed before trial Court. The Appellant/1 defendant disobeyed the direction of the trial Court, failed to pay the cost and the I.A.No.359/2015 was dismissed, preliminary decree passed st by the trial Court. The Appellant/1 defendant only to entitle to file petition to restore the I.A.No.359/2015. But, he did not do that and filed a new interlocutory application No.357/2016 before the trial Court. The st Appellant/1 defendant suppressed about the facts of I.A.No.359/2015 before the trial Court. The act of the st Appellant/1 defendant is not legal. That application is not only to drag the proceedings of the trial Court. But, not legal as per the provision of law. That, I.A.No.357/2016 is not an application to entertain. That petition ought to have refused for numbering or should be rejected at the initial stage before giving notice to other side. The trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A.No.357/2016. There is no substantial ground to