(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Kallakurichi are the revision petitioners. THE respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale executed by the petitioners on 12.02.2004. In the above suit, the 2nd revision petitioner entered appearance through counsel and the 1st revision petitioner did not appear and the 1st revision petitioner was set exparte and the 2nd revision petitioner filed statement and when the case was posted for trial, the counsel appearing for 2nd revision petitioner reported no instructions and an exparte decree was passed on 06.08.2008.
(2.) THEREAFTER, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P. to execute the Sale Deed in E.P.No.82 of 2008 and summons in E.P.No.82 of 2008 was served on the 1st revision petitioner on 07.11.2008 and on the 2nd revision petitioner on 05.12.2008 and both the revision petitioners engaged different lawyers and after getting various adjournments, they failed to file the counter and therefore, they were set exparte on 28.04.2009 and Sale Deed was executed by the Court on 01.07.2009 and registered the same on 03.07.2009. THEREAFTER, the revision petitioners filed I.A. 291 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 352 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree and that application was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed.
(3.) HEARD both sides. It is admitted that during trial, the 1st revision petitioner was set exparte and the 2nd revision petitioner contested the suit by filing statement and thereafter did not prosecute the same. The revision petitioners examined the Advocate who appeared for the 2nd revision petitioner during trial and the said Advocate has deposed that he informed revision petitioners about the exparte decree passed against them and the 2nd revision petitioner did not want to set aside the exparte decree and thereafter, he left the profession and was not aware of the further development.