RADHABAI; CHANDRAMOHAN; PINGALAN; MAHENDIRAN; KAUDILYAN Vs. PADMAVATHI; S SHANMUGHAM; BASKARAN; MURUGESAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against an order made in I.A.No.202 of 2010 in I.A.No.1090 of 2006 in O.S.No.40 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.40/2004, which was filed by the respondents for partition. The said suit came to be dismissed for default on 01.11.2006. The respondents herein as plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1090/2006 for restoration of the suit on 30.11.2006, i.e., within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the suit for default. When the said application was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2007, the respondents herein did not appear and consequently, the said application was dismissed for default on 31.07.2007. The respondents filed an application in I.A.No.202 of 2010 on 27.08.2007 to restore I.A.No.1090/2006, within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the said application. The said application was returned by the court for effecting certain compliance. Therefore, there was delay in representing the matter. It appears that the said delay of 500 days was also condoned by the court below and against which, there was no revision petition filed or challenge made by the petitioners herein. Thus, the application filed for restoration of I.A.No.1090 of 2006 was taken up for hearing and after considering all the facts and circumstances, the court below has allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent therein and also Rs.1,000/- to respondents 6 to 10 therein. The said order of the court below is challenged before this court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.