MANI MESTHRI Vs. NATARAJ KIRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners are heard. The grounds of revision and the materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed a suit O.S.No.21 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar, against the revision petitioners 1 to 4 herein and one Ramajayam, son of Govindaraji Pillai for permanent injunction restraining them not to trespass into the suit property and cause disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the respondent herein/plaintiff. Since the defendants in the said suit did not appear, they were set exparte and the trial Court proceeded with the exparte trial and at the end of the exparte trial passed an exparte decree granting the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint. Such a decree came to be passed on 30.03.2010.

(3.) THE learned Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar, after hearing, came to the conclusion that the revision petitioners/the petitioners in the above said Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.793 of 2011) were not able to explain the inordinate delay in preferring the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and that the reason assigned by the petitioners could not be accepted to be a valid reason for condoning the said delay. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application I.A.No.793 of 2011 by the impugned order and decreetal order dated 30.11.2012.