PADMAVATHI AMMAL Vs. N DHINAKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the dismissal of the Petition in I.A.No.20598/2004 in O.S.No.175/1991 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone the delay of 939 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte Decree.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2/Plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No. 175/1991 for setting aside the Sale Deeds dated 02.04.1984 and 31.07.1985 and for partition and separate possession. RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 are the mother and brother of RESPONDENTS 1 and 2. The suit was originally filed before the High Court on 02.05.1986 and later the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai. Originally, Petitioners who are Defendants 7 and 8 in the suit were not parties in the suit. I.A.No.1865/1993 was filed for impleading the Petitioners as well as 9th Respondent as Defendants 7 to 9. Notice was served by Substituted Service and Petitioners were impleaded as Defendants 7 and 8. In the suit also, Petitioners were served only by substituted Service and the Petitioners were set exparte on 26.03.2002 and exparte Preliminary Decree for partition was passed on 26.03.2002. Final Decree application was filed, in which notice was served upon the Petitioners. Stating that they had knowledge of the proceedings only from 02.11.2004, the date on which notices were served in the Final Decree proceedings, Petitioners filed application to set aside the Preliminary Decree passed on 26.03.2002 along with application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 939 days. The RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 strongly resisted the application.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned Order and placing reliance upon a number of decisions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that if the delay is not condoned, the Petitioners would be deprived of the valuable rights. Placing reliance upon a number of decisions, it was submitted that the consistent view taken by the various Courts is to adopt a liberal approach, liberally construing the expression 'sufficient cause'.