(1.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.76 of 1998 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam. THE suit is for partition. An exparte preliminary decree was passed on 10.4.2006. THEreafter, they filed I.A.No.373 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties as per the preliminary decree and to deliver the divided properties in their favour. When the application was pending, the respondent/defendant filed a petition in I.A.No.156 of 2006 to set aside the exparte preliminary decree. THE plaintiffs filed their counter. Since the respondent did not take steps to implead the legal heirs of respondents 11, 13, 14, 18 and 28 and have not paid batta for respondents 3 to 8, the above said petition was dismissed by the Court on 28.11.2007.
(2.) THE respondent, thereafter, filed an application in I.A.No.152 of 2008 to set aside the dismissal of I.A.No.156 of 2006 under Order IX, Rule 4, CPC and the same was allowed without notice to these petitioners. Likewise, the petitioners were not given notice in the interlocutory application for setting aside the exparte decree. Again, without notice to these petitioners, the final decree proceedings was closed.
(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Court below and the order challenged before this Court can be justified in all aspects.