MARUCHAMY Vs. K.P.PASUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case. This is a revision arising against dismissal of a petition filed for restitution. The first defendant is the petitioner before me. The defendant suffered an exparte decree on 4/10/2008. To set aside the same, he filed an application with condonation of delay in I.A.No.262 of 2009. The said application was dismissed on 12/2/2010. Thereafter, he preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) No.4944 of 2011. The said revision came to be allowed condoning the delay on payment of costs of Rs.5,000.00 with a further direction to dispose of the application under Order 9 Rule 13. This order was passed on 21/2/2017. The condition having been complied, the application to set aside the exparte decree was taken up. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 was taken up for disposal and the said application was allowed on 13/10/2017.

(2.) In the meantime, in order to execute the exparte decree for rectification of a sale deed, an application was filed in E.P.No.8 of 2009. The said E.P., was allowed and a sale deed was executed in favour of the holder of the exparte decree. Thereafter, he took out an application in E.A.No.319 of 2010 for recording of delivery. On 9/8/2011, the Court recorded that possession was handed over on 4/8/2011 and E.A.No.319 of 2010 was closed.

(3.) On the setting aside of the exparte decree on 25/10/2017, the parties went for trial and the suit was dismissed after contest on 12/3/2018. The first defendant from whom possession was taken by virtue of being judgment debtor pursuant to the exparte decree took out an application for re-delivery in I.A.No.375 of 2018.