BABULAL SURANA Vs. VARALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.18003 of 2012 in O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 4 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on 23.07.2007 was rejected.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court.

(3.) I have perused the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.667 and 669 of 2010 dated 25.04.2011. The said civil revision petitions were filed challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.16 and 15 of 2009 respectively in I.A.No.11 of 2007 in O.S.No.2189 of 1996. The said application in I.A.No.11/2007 was filed by the petitioners on 24.03.2007 to set aside the exparte decree passed on 22.03.2007. The said application came to be dismissed for default and only to restore the same, the other two applications were filed in I.A.Nos.16 and 15 of 2009 respectively. When those applications were rejected, the petitioners have come by way of the above said civil revision petitions before this Court. After ï¿ 1/2considering various aspects of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed both the civil revision petitions by holding that when the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was dismissed, the petitioners filed a petition to restore the same with an application to condone the delay of 711 days which shows the lethargic attitude of the petitioners and there was no bonafide reason available to condone such delay.