MAHABOOB BEE Vs. ANIMA BEE(DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in I.A. Nos.626 and 628 of 2012 in O.S. No.468 of 1994.

(2.) The respondents as the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.468 of 1997 for preliminary decree of partition and separate possession. Ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 18.10.2004. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed an application in I.A.No.306 of 2006 for passing of final decree and that final decree was passed on 29.03.2010. After receipt of notice in R.E.P.No.44 of 2011 only, the petitioners came to know about the passing of ex parte preliminary decree and final decree. Hence, the petitioners/defendants 3,4,7 to 9 have filed I.A.No.626 of 2012 to condone the delay of 2571 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 18.10.2004 and filed I.A.No.628 of 2012 to condone the delay of 582 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte final decree dated 29.03.2010. Both the applications were dismissed on 001.2014. Challenging the same, the present revisions are preferred by the petitioners/defendants 3,4,7 to 9.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner, who is the third defendant in O.S. No.468 of 1997, is one of the sharers of the suit. The petitioners 2 to 5 are her children. She is aged about 85 years. Since she is a Pardanashin lady, she will not come outside. Due to her ill health, she did not file the petitions to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree in time. That factum was not considered by the trial Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the revisions. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied upon the decision reported in 1998 (II) CTC 533 (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy).