POUNU Vs. KANNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam dated 15. 04. 2005 made in I. A. No. 1761 of 2004 in O. S. No. 404 of 1997, in and by which, the learned Judge condoned the delay of 605 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte preliminary decree.

(2.) IT is seen from the impugned order that the respondent herein-third defendant has filed a written statement in time. In the written statement, the third defendant is claiming exclusive title on the strength of the registered settlement deed executed by one Pappammal. This defence has to be considered only at the time of trial. Of course she has not filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree in time, there was a delay of 605 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that she was fell illness due to the death of her mother Pavunammal and because of the same she could not met her counsel and that an application has been filed by the plaintiffs for final decree proceedings.

(3.) TAKING note of the reasons for the absence of the third defendant, viz. , death of her mother and of the defence taken in the written statement, the Court below has inclined to give an opportunity to her to contest the suit on merits and on that basis, condoned the delay. In addition to the same, the learned trial Judge, taking note of the fact that based on the application filed for final decree proceedings and of the fact that the Commissioner has been appointed, imposed a cost of Rs. 4,000/- payable by her to the plaintiffs.