MAILAMMAL Vs. KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit in O.S.No.761 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram, filed by the respondents herein for declaring the first plaintiff as the legally wedded wife of one Srinivasan and the second plaintiff as the legitimate son through the first plaintiff and that they are entitled to get pension and monetary benefits due to deceased Srinivasan.

(2.) THE petitioners herein as defendants therein participated in the suit proceedings. During trial, PW1 was examined and while PW2 was in the witness box, the defendants failed to appear before the trial Court for cross examining PW2. As a result, PW2 evidence was closed. After that the defendants were set exparte and an exparte judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court. The petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the exparte decree stating that the first petitioner being illiterate and the second petitioner used to be out of station for job purpose, both of them were unable to follow the Court proceedings and they came to know about the same only on 20.09.2008 through the Village Administrative Officer and thereafter, the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1197 of 2008 came to be filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 417 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The said application was seriously opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial Court without going into the reasons for the delay, dismissed the application on the ground that the judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court under Order 17 Rule 13 and not an ex parte decree and that the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is not maintainable. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners/defendants have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(3.) HEARD the rival submissions made on both sides.