M SINNAMANI Vs. G RAJASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been filed against the order of dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 753 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the first respondent against 7 defendants for declaration that the suit property belongs to him absolutely and for other reliefs. THE petitioners are defendants 3 and 4. THE first respondent/plaintiff is the son of A.M.M.S.Ganesa Nadar and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are his Brothers. THE 4th and 5th respondents are son of the 2nd respondent, and 6th respondent is the son of the 3rd respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel relied on several decisions in support of his case. THE learned counsel also pointed out that in the affidavit filed in support of application a specific statement was made that exparte decree has been got due to fraud but fraud has not been established. THE purchasers from the first respondent have filed the C.M.P.No.2827 of 2004 to implead themselves. This application was also listed along with the revision and the counsel was heard. THE learned counsel for the impleading petitioners would submit that the petitioner's property and the respondent's property are adjacent to each other and therefore the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they had no knowledge.