PONNAMMAL Vs. S V SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THIS revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.11.2009 made in I.A.No.168 of 2008 in O.S.No.536 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that though the petitioners herein purchased the entire first item of the Schedule of property from the first defendant, their substantial rights could be adjudicated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also further submitted that the other defendants contested the matter, however, the Preliminary Decree passed so far as against the petitioners was only an exparte decree and therefore the unnumbered petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was maintainable. After receiving the summons in the suit, the petitioners have approached the second defendant, son of the first defendant and he knows the rights of the petitioners would be defended by him by engaging an advocate to defend the case of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the purpose of engaging a counsel, the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.500/- each to the second defendant and also signed in a Vakalat.