LAKSHMI Vs. AMARAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1 of 1996 is the petitioner in the above civil revision petition. THE respondents have filed the original suit against the petitioner herein and three others praying for partition of the suit properties which are house and landed properties falling under different door and survey numbers of Tenkasi Taluk and to allot 4/6 shares from the whole of the first schedule and item No.2 of the second schedule properties.

(2.) IT further comes to be known that the petitioner/first defendant and the other defendants to the suit have been set ex parte on 107.1997 which the petitioner came to know on 29.12.1998 since in April, 1997, she had gone to Gujarat seeking job for her livelihood wherein she got employed as a labourer in a fish export company and she was not able to participate in any of the proceedings of the suit and put up a valid decree that on coming back home on 23.12.1998 and having come to be apprised of the ex parte decree dated 10.7.1998, thereafter she instructed her counsel and hence further pleading that the default that had been caused in the non-prosecution of the case was neither willful, nor wanton and in the genuine circumstances pleaded therein and in the said process, a delay of 149 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree had occurred and praying to execute the said delay, had filed I.A.No.1065 of 1999 under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act and under Sec.151, C.P.C. and the same having come to be dismissed by the trial court that is the court of Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi without costs, the petitioner herein has come forward to file this revision against the fair and decretal order dated 20.12.1999 passed in I.A.No.1065 of 1999 in O.S.No.1 of 1996 by the Court to Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi seeking to set aside the same.

(3.) IT is not whether the innocent petitioner has rightly come forward to offer the exact date on which she had been set ex parte by the lower court, but the relevancy lies in whether the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the further proceedings of the suit wherein it is understood that the suit had been filed by the other side for partition and separate possession. When such of the rights of parties regarding the valuable properties are involved, minor inconsistencies that are susceptible to occur in such applications filed by innocent parties like the petitioner, could not be taken as a serious flaw or blunder so as to dismiss their application in toto thus denying the very opportunity of the petitioner to be heard by the court in deciding the main issue.