An application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC has no fixed period of limitation and permits a defendant to join proceedings from the current stage; to enable meaningful participation, the court must allow the defendant to file a written statement, limited to the current stage of evidence.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 23.01.2020 dismissing the I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.449 of 2014 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner expressed his apology for his non-appearance on the previous date of hearing.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner is the 2nd Defendant in the suit in O.S.No.449 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. It is his contention that the Revision Petitioner is impleaded as 2nd Defendant in the suit in O.S.No.449 of 2014. He is the purchaser of the suit property in item '3' of the plaint schedule. The 2nd Defendant is not aware of the joint venture agreement entered into between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further contended that the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff had entered into joint venture agreement, which is an unregistered document. The Petitioner is aged 75 years. Also, he is residing 75 kms away from the Court. Therefore, he was unable to attend Court on every date of hearing. He was relying on his Counsel. The fact that the Revision Petitioner herein as 2nd Defendant in the suit in O.S.No.449 of 2014 was set ex parte was known to the 2nd Defendant very late. By the time, he came to know that he was set ex parte, immediately he filed a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.449 of 2014. The Respondents objected stating that the petition had been filed after 4½ years after the 2nd Defendant was set ex parte. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that there had been communication gap between him and his earlier Counsel. The earlier Counsel had not informed him about the fact that he was set ex parte.

4. On coming to know that the Revision Petitioner as 2nd Defendant in the suit was set ex parte, immediately, he had filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.449 of 2014 after changing his Counsel. If the suit is decided without hearing the Revision Petitioner herein as 2nd Defendant in the suit, it will end up in miscarriage of justice and also lead to multiple proceedings. To avoid such exigency, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner seeks to set aside the order of dismissal in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.449 of 2014, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 23.01.2020.

5. The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that Article 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. The suit is filed in the year 2014. Written statement was filed filed by the 2nd Defendant along with typed set of papers. The 2nd Defendant is stated to have purchased the property from 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant had already filed written statement. 2nd Defendant is the Revision Petitioner herein. The 2nd Defendant had raised the defence almost similar to 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant cannot go beyond what is claimed by the 1st Defendant.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the written statement filed by the 1st Defendant on 07.03.2015. He also invited the attention of this Court to the dates drawn from the Court diary. The 2nd Defe