DCVAKI ANIMAL Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner in this revision petition against the order dated 2.9.1990 to I.A.No.1005 of 1991 filed by defendants 1,3 and 4 (respondents herein) praying for condonation of delay of 621 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 27.3.1989in O.S.No.1297 of 1987 on the file of the 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said order allowed the said application on condition that the said defendants paid a sum of Rs. 500 as costs within 30.9.1992. The said defendants having complied with the said condition, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE court below came to the conclusion that on 19.7.1990 itself the defendants had knowledge of the exparte decree since the bailiff, in executing the decree, has reported that when he went to deliver possession of the suit property pursuant to the said possession decree given, 4th defendant was present and objected to the delivery of possession. Thus, the court below rejected the contention of the said defendants that they came to know of the exparte decree only on 17.12.1990.

(3.) THE other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, viz., Balaram v. Hemalata, A.I.R. 1969 On. 196, turned on the relevant facts in that case. But, the facts in the present case are different.