Natural justice mandates that parties must have an opportunity to present their case, particularly in ex parte situations.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated June

24, 2020 passed in I.A.No.201 of 2018 in O.S.No.135 of 2014 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

2.The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs, the respondents 4 to 6 herein are the defendants 1 to 3 and the Revision Petitioner herein is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.135 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court').

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

4.The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant is the father of the plaintiff. The suit property was purchased by their mother, viz., Banumathi vide registered sale deed dated July 17, 1985. The plaintiff's mother, Banumathi died intestate on December 06, 1987 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the first defendant as her legal heirs to succeed her estate. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are the co-owners and the co-sharers in respect of the suit property. Thus, the plaintiffs and the first defendant are entitled to each 1/4 share in the suit property. With a view to defeat and defraud the plaintiffs, the first defendant executed a sale deed on October 9, 2003 in favour of the second defendant in regard to entire extent of the suit property; in turn, the second defendant executed a sale deed on June 13, 2011 in favour of the third defendant in turn, the third defendant executed a sale deed on August 27, 2014 in favour of the fourth defendant/Revision Petitioner. The aforesaid sale deeds would not bind the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

5.The defendants 1 to 3 did not file written statement. The case of the fourth defendant is that the plaintiffs have already relinquished their rights in favour of their father and he sold the suit property to the second defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant sold the same to the third defendant and the same was sold to the fourth defendant vide sale deed dated August 27, 2014. The fourth defendant is a bonafide purchaser with value without notice. Accordingly, the fourth defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and posted the matter for trial. When the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1 on June 13, 2017, the fourth defendant did not cross-examine the witnesses. Hence, the fourth defendant was called absent and set exparte and an exparte preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on June 30, 2017.

7.The fourth defendant filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 359 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The said petition was numbered as I.A.No.201 of 2018.

8.The fourth defendant, in her affidavit, stated that she had gone to Kolhapur in the month of May 2017 and returned in the month of July 2018 only. Further she averred that, she shifted her residence from Pernambut to Gowrapet and resided there. When the case was posted on June 13, 2017 for cross-examination of P.W.1, the Revision Petitioner did not know about the posting of the case and hence, she could not instruct her counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff's side witness (i.e.P.W.1). Further averred that she came to know about the exparte decree passed against her only after receiving the notice in final decree proceedings.

Hence, she prayed to condone the aforesaid delay of 359 days.

9.The said petition was strongly opposed by the plaintiffs by stating that the petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement. The averments stated in the affidavit are not true. Only with