NATARAJAN Vs. MANU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gingee, is the revision petitioner. THE above suit was filed for partition and the respondents who are defendants, were served, but they remained ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on 24.04.2003. THEreafter, final decree application was filed and the defendants were served and the respondent herein who was the first defendant, remained ex-parte and notice was issued against the other defendants. At this juncture, the respondent/first defendant filed I.A.No.41 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1836 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him, and that petition was allowed by the lower Court on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- and that order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr.M.Ravichander, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that the Court below, having found that the respondent has filed the affidavit containing incorrect statement and having held that the respondent has filed the application only with the intention of delaying the passing of final decree, ought not to have exercised the discretion in favour of the respondent and ought to have dismissed the application and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008(5) CTC 663, in support of his contention.

(3.) IN the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.