KAMATCHI Vs. ARULMIGU UCHINIMAHALI AMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders passed in E.A.Nos.164, 165, 166 of 2016 and 137, 138, 139 and 140 of 2018 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003, dtd. 1/3/2019, on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin.

(2.) The revision petitioners are Third parties. The first respondent, who is the petitioner in E.P.No.18 of 2009 and the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2003 against the second respondent/defendant for eviction of the second respondent from the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation of the suit property. The second respondent/defendant, after filing of the written statement, has remained ex-parte and hence, the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin has passed an ex-parte decree, dtd. 18/1/2005, directing the second respondent/defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the first respondent/plaintiff and granted other reliefs claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the second respondent/defendant has filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree and that the trial Court, after enquiry, has dismissed the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the second respondent has preferred a revision before this Court, that this Court has passed an order condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree by imposing costs and that the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree is pending.