RAMACHANDRAN Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing. The defendants 2, 5 and 6 in OS No.2 of 2008 are the petitioners. The suit was laid by the first respondent/plaintiff, seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit properties.

(2.) Certain alienations and certain gratuitous transfers made by the first defendant were also impugned in the suit. It appears from the records that the suit was decreed exparte on 17.07.2009, an application for final decree was filed in IA No.196 of 2012. The petitioners herein filed the instant Application in IA No.39 of 2013 seeking condonation of delay of 1216 days in seeking to set aside the exparte decree.

(3.) The reasons set out for the delay is that the parties are governed by the Customary Hindu Law, as in vogue in Pondicherry and therefore, a suit for partition itself is not maintainable. It was also contended that the second defendant, who is the deponent and father of the minor defendants 2 and 3, though, had engaged a counsel, the said counsel did not inform him of the proceedings in the suit. Only after receipt of the notice in the final decree proceedings he came to know about the exparte decree that was passed in the suit on 17.07.2009. Therefore, according to him, there was no negligence on his part in prosecuting the proceedings and it is the communication gap between him and his counsel that has resulted in these delay.