BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 17.03.2025 DELIVERED ON: 10.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(MD).No.1883 of 2023 and CMP(MD).No.9452 of 2023

1.V.Suresh ....1^st Petitioner/1^st Petitioner /2nd Defendant

2.T.Vishnu Jothi ....2^nd Petitioner/2^nd Petitioner /7th Defendant Vs

1.P.Poomathi ....1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent /Plaintiff

2.P.Viswanathan ...2^nd Respondent/2^nd Respondent /1^st Defendant

3.V.Santhi ...3^rd Respondent/3^rd Respondent /3^rd Defendant

4.V.Amutha ...4^th Respondent/4^th Respondent /4^th Defendant

5.V.Kavitha .....5^th Respondent/5^th Respondent /5th Defendant

6.V.Vanitha ...6^th Respondent/6^th Respondent /6^th Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 16.08.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.109 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ananth For Respondents : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham for R1 : Mr.K.Prabakaran for R2 : Mr.J.Jeevin for R3 to R6

O R D E R

The defendants 2 and 7 in O.S.No.109 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil has filed the present civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of their application to condone the delay of 985 days in setting aside an exparte decree.

2.The first respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property. She had further prayed for an declaration that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 19.06.2008 is void abinitio. She had also prayed for a declaration that the settlement deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the seventh defendant on 26.09.2016 is void abinitio. She had also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property.

3.The defendants 2 and 7 were set exparte on 05.06.2017 and an exparte decree came to be passed on 30.11.2018. The defendants 2 and 7 have filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 on 20.08.2021 seeking to condone the delay of 985 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. After contest, this application has been dismissed. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

4.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the defendants 2 and 7 did not receive the summons from the Court. They came to know about the exparte decree only when an attempt was made by them to alienate the property in favour of third parties. It is further contended that the 5^th defendant in the present suit had earlier filed O.S.No.57 of 2012 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil for the relief of partition, separate possession and for a permanent injunction not to alienate the suit schedule property. In the said suit, except the plaintiff in the present suit, all others were parties. They entered into a compromise and based upon a compromise, a final decree came to be passed. In the said final decree, 40 cents were allotted in favour of four daughters and the balance extent was allotted in favour of the 2^nd defendant in the present suit. Based upon the said allotment, the 2^nd defendant had settled the same in favour of his wife namely the 7^th defendant in the suit. Suppressing the compromise decree, the present suit has been filed by the wife of the first defendant in the previous suit claiming as if she is the absolute owner of the properties. Hence, according to him, an exparte decree has been obtained in a fraudulent manner, without placing on record, the compromise decree passed in the previous suit.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application, it has been specifically pleaded that no notice was served upon the defendants 2 and 7. It was further contended that the signature of these parties have been forged and a fraudulent