NEELAMEGAM Vs. ARPUTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 114 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, are the revision petitioners herein.

(2.) The respondent herein filed P.O.P. No. 41 of 2004 to declare himself as indigent person and in that proceedings, the revision petitioners entered appearance through counsel and after contest, P.O.P. No. 41 of 2004 was allowed and the same was ordered to be numbered as suit and the case was posted to 20.11.2006. On that date, the revision petitioners did not appear and the case was adjourned to various dates for the appearance of the revision petitioners and finally, ex parte decree was passed on 31.8.2007. The respondent filed E.P. to execute the decree and at that stage, the revision petitioners came to know that the decree was passed against them in O.S. No. 114 of 2006 on 31.8.2007 and therefore, they filed application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them and as there was a delay of 309 in filing the application, they filed Section 5 application to condone the delay in setting aside the ex-parte decree and that application was dismissed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. G. Karnan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that admittedly, after numbering the suit, no summons were served on the revision petitioners and therefore, they were not aware of the date of the proceedings and without serving the summons, the Court should not have passed the ex parte decree and hence, the lower Court has erred in dismissing the application to condone the delay.