SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of dismissal made by the learned District Munsif, Pollachi made in I. A. No. 2313 of 1999, seeking to condone the delay of 925 days in making an application to set aside the ex parte final decree in O. S. No. 274 of 1995 is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looked into the materials along with the grounds to assail the said order.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, there were seven defendants in the suit for partition in O. S. No. 274 of 1995. A preliminary decree has been passed. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that he did not have any idea about the preliminary decree. Then, final decree proceedings have been initiated, in which the fifth defendant was set ex parte and he has filed an application in I. A. No. 2771 of 1997 to set aside the same, in which the petitioner herein engaged a counsel and has participated in the proceedings. Hence, at this juncture, the petitioner cannot be allowed to state that he had no knowledge about the final decree proceedings. Apart from that, in the instant case, Commissioner of Court was appointed in order to file the report, on inspection of the property. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Commissioner, who made an inspection of an immovable property, had not given notice to him. Hence, after participating in the proceedings, now the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he had no knowledge about the final decree proceedings. The reason adduced that he was away at Madurai and hence, he could not participate in the proceedings cannot be a reason, which could be accepted. Being a party to the proceedings and having knowledge about the same, the reasons adduced, at no stretch of imagination, could be accepted. The lower court was perfectly correct in dismissing the application. Hence, this civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.