The judgment establishes the principle that defendants can seek to set aside ex parte orders without limitation, provided they demonstrate valid grounds for their non-appearance while ensuring that justice is upheld within procedural frameworks.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.13 of 2018 dated 05.08.2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Lalgudi, dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondent as plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking recovery of possession directing the defendants 1 to 21, 23 to 26 and 27 to surrender possession of the suit property after removing the unauthorized construction made by the 21^st defendant and for payment of past and future profits and for permanent injunction restraining the 22^nd defendant/ Government of Tamil Nadu from issuing C-Form license to the defendants 21 and 27. The revision petitioner, who is the 19^th defendant, after the receipt of suit summons, has not turned up for the first hearing on 19.07.2000 and hence, she was called absent and set ex parte. Since the suit is pending, the revision petitioner/19^th defendant has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.07.2000.

3. The case of the revision petitioner/19^th defendant is that the revision petitioner/19^th defendant has purchased 8.76 acres of land in Old S.F.No.15, New S.F.No.12 on 27.03.1979 along with her father Subramaniyan and mother Smt.Lalitha Subramaniyan, that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since their purchase, that her parents were shown as defendants 17 and 18 in the above suit, that her father died on 22.12.1999 and her mother died on 12.09.2006, that the revision petitioner/19^th defendant is the only legal heir and she is the sole legal heir to inherit the property, that the above case has been transferred to Lalgudi and sent for mediation, that the revision petitioner/19^th defendant has not received any communication with regard to the transfer or the mediation date and as such, she could not appear before the Court, that her advocate has written a letter about the transfer of suit to Lalgudi, that even that letter has not been received by her, that when she approached her lawyer, she came to know about the ex parte order, that she was set ex parte on 19.07.2000 and that since the revision petitioner/19^th defendant got a good case on merits, she was constrained to file the above application for setting aside the ex parte order. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter statement stating that the averments raised in the affidavit are all false, that the revision petitioner/ 19^th defendant has not filed any document in support of her claim, that when the revision petitioner/19^th defendant has claimed title to the suit property, the above evasive reasons clearly proved that the revision petitioner/19^th defendant only in order to drag the matter let the suit for ex parte, that the above matter was posted for further cross-examination and that therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 dismissing the application. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property is belonging to the respondent/plaintiff Idol, that it was originally a Minor Inam land under title deed No.1114, that the suit property was granted to the respondent/plaintiff Idol as a Devadhayam Grant and the same was granted for the purpose of rendering Sripatham Thangi Service to the respondent/plaintiff Idol, that after the abolishment of Minor Inam, suo moto proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar in Lalgudi Taluk and a conditional patta was granted to the ancestors of the defendants 1 to 16 under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1963 subject to the condition of rendering Sripatham Thangi Service to the respondent/ plaintiff Idol, that the ancestors of the defendants 1 to 16 were only allowed to remain in possession of the suit property so long as they render service and so long a