ZAIBUNISSA BIVI Vs. MADRAS STATE WAKF BOARD MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant in the suit is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, and the plaintiff is the respondent. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 25th May, 1968. She filed an application I.A. No. 1347 of 1977 on 19th July, 1977 after a delay of 8 years and 9 months, for setting aside the ex parte decree. This petitioner's contention was that the suit summons was not served on her and the application setting aside the ex parte decree was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the decree. THE trial Court held that there was service of suit summons on the petitioner, and as the application to set aside the ex parte decree was not filed within thirty days from the date of decree, it refused to set aside the ex parte decree against which the present civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE petitioner was impleaded as the third defendant in the suit as per the order passed in I. A. No. 342 of 1968 on 15th February, 1968, In I. A. 659 of 1968, dated 20th February, 1968, the schedule of the suit property came to be amended. In the plaint it is stated that the third defendant came to be impleaded as per the orders passed in I. A. 659 of 1963. Relying on the discrepancy in the I.A. number under which the third defendant came to be impleaded as a party, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there could have been no service of summons on the third defendant, and the application filed within thirty days from the date of knowledge is well within time.