LAKSHMI Vs. INDIRANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A.14862 of 2005 in O.S.No.7780 of 1989. The 1st respondent filed suit against the mother of the Revision Petitioner and two others for partition in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai. During the penency of the suit, the mother of the Revision Petitioner died. Therefore, the petitioner was impleaded as legal heir. That suit in O.S.No.7780 1989 was decreed as exparte against the petitioner. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the final decree application in I.A.No.2297 of 1993.

(2.) According to the Revision Petitioner, her mother Logammal who was the 1st defendant in O.S.No.7780 of 1989, had entrusted the work of managing the affairs to her sons viz., respondents 3 and 4 herein. She was under bonafide impression that respondents 3 and 4 were looking after the case on behalf of her. During March 2005, mother of the petitioner came to know that suit has been decreed exparte and preliminary decree has been passed against her. Therefore, she filed the petition under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay of 130 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The said petition was dismissed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 17.09.2007. Challenging the same, the Revision petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased Logammal filed this civil revision petition before this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner was arrayed as 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 and her brothers Ganesan and Kanniappan are respondents 3 and 4 herein and are arrayed as defendants 2 and 3. The mother of the petitioner believed respondents 3 and 4 are conducting the case on behalf of her and therefore she did not follow the case. On March 2005, when the mother of the petitioner was issued with summons for the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.1041 of 2005, she came to know about exparte decree passed in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 and that time only, she came to know that respondents 3 and 4 have not properly followed the case and they are acting against the interest of the petitioner and therefore, she filed petition to set aside exparte decree, for which there was a delay of 130 days, hence petition u/s.5 of Limitation Act has been filed praying to condone the delay.