O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner / 4th defendant seeking to set aside the order dated 24.11.2014 in I.A. No. 662 of 2014 in O.S. No. 6 of 2009 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry dismissing the petition to set aside the exparte order dated

03.11.2014.

2.The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 6 of

2009 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry against the defendants. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff seeking for preliminary decree of partition and final decree of demarcation, allotment and delivery of separate possession of his half share in the suit property and for costs. The revision petitioner / 4th defendant is the purchaser of the suit property from the

1st to 3rd defendants and she is the contesting defendant. The suit was posted on 03.11.2014 for filing of written statement. Since the counsel for the 4th defendant had not appeared and filed written statement on 03.11.2014, the 4th defendant was set exparte. Aggrieved by the same, she had filed I.A. No. 662 of 2014 stating that on 03.11.2014, there was heavy rain in Pondicherry and thereby, her counsel was unable to reach the Trial Court. Since, the counsel did not appear before the Trial Court and file the written statement, the Court had set her exparte. It was further stated that the non-filing of the written statement was neither willful nor wanton and it was not done deliberately with an intention to protract the trial and that the written statement had been filed immediately within two days along with an application in I.A. No. 662 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 03.11.2014 and permission was also sought to contest the suit on merits.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff before the Trial Court has filed a counter on behalf of the plaintiff. In the counter, it had been stated that I.A. No. 662 of 2014 is the second application filed to set aside the exparte order. It had been further stated that the 4th defendant was earlier set exparte on 24.06.2009 and thereafter, the trial was conducted and when the suit was posted for judgment on 24.01.2013, the 4th defendant had filed I.A. No. 17 of 2013 after three years to set aside that exparte order and the Court had set aside that exparte order. It was further averred that the 4th defendant had not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte order dated 03.11.2014. Further, it had been averred that the written statement was not filed in time and it was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and thereby, sought to dismiss the petition seeking to set aside the exparte order. The Trial Court by order dated 24.11.2014 dismissed I.A. No. 662 of 2014 filed by the 4th defendant stating that it is the second application for setting aside the exparte order and that on an earlier occasion on 24.06.2009, she was set exparte and only when the suit was posted for judgment, an application in I.A. No. 17 of 2013 was filed by her after 3 years seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 24.09.2009 and that on application has been allowed on 15.02.2013. Further, the plaintiff had also filed I.A.No. 200 of 2013 in I.A. No. 17 of 2013 seeking to set aside the order dated 15.02.2013 and that was dismissed by order dated 09.10.2014 and even till that time, the 4th defendant had not filed the written statement. Thereafter, since the 4th defendant did not appear on 03.11.2014 and that the case was defended by the other defendants and further finding that the application was devoid of merits, dismissed I.A. No. 662 of 2014 in O.S. No. 6 of 2009 by order dated 24.04.2014. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th defendant would submit that a perusal of the order of the Trial Court would sho