BABULAL SURANA Vs. VARALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent.

(2.) C.R.P.(NPD).No.667 of 2010 is preferred by the petitioners, who are the defendants 9 and 10 in the suit in O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on the file of the Court below. The revision has been filed, challenging the order, dated 10.09.2009 made in I.A.No.16 of 2009 in I.A.No.11 of 2007 in O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai. C.R.P (NPD).No.669 of 2010 is preferred by the petitioners, challenging the order, dated 10.09.2009 made in I.A.No.15 of 2009 in I.A.No.11 of 2007 in the aforesaid suit on the file of the Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein who were arrayed as defendants 9 and 10 had purchased the property on 12.09.1996 from the defendants 1 to 7. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit was filed in the year 1994, therefore, it is made clear that the alleged sale transaction took place subsequent to the filing of the suit. Since all the defendants were set exparte, after service of summons, the Court below passed a preliminary decree of partition on 23.03.2007. It is seen that the respondent had examined herself as P.W.1, apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.6 before the Court below to establish her claim of 1/6th share in the property.