KRISHNAMMAL Vs. ARULMIGHU MADANAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.54 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. The respondent herein filed the said suit originally on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. For administrative reasons, by order dated 27.1.1992 the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court. Ariyalur and the first hearing was posted on 16.3.1992, on which date the counsel for the plaintiff filed vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff. Notice was ordered to the defendants by 30.3.1992. The matter was adjourned to 30.4.1992 by extending the time for parties appearance. On 30.4.1992 the matter was adjourned to 20.7.! 992 for the appearance of the defendants. However, on 24.6.1992, on an application filed by the plaintiff, the hearing of the suit was advanced to 26.6.1992. On that date, the ex parte decree was passed.

(2.) THE petitioners herein filed an application I.A. No.625 of 1993 to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree in the said suit. THE said application was dismissed by the trial court, against which the present revision has been filed.

(3.) ON the contrary, the counsel for the respondent contended that on 16.3.1992 at the first call before the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur the plaintiff's counsel had filed the vakalat. The transferor court had already informed the respective counsel about the transfer of the suit to the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur and as such there is no necessity for the issue of any summons to the defendants. The direction issued by the District Munsif, Ariyalur to take the summons to the defendants is a mistake. ON realising the mistake, the suit was taken up on the ground that no fresh notice is necessary for the defendants. When there is no Rule contemplating the issue of fresh notice, the direction issued by the transferee court cannot be taken advantage of by the defendants in the suit. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 380 days. Since the delay is exhorbitant one, the order of the lower court in dismissing the application needs no interference.