SUNDARAMMAL Vs. KARUPPANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant who failed in her attempt to set aside the ex parte decree before the courts below, has filed the above revision petition.

(2.) THE respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.10.1990. THE petitioner herein filed a written statement and contested the suit. THE suit was posted for trial on 18.11.1993. Since the defendant did not appear on that date, the defendant was set ex-parte and the suit was decreed on the same date. THE petitioner/defendant filed I.A. No. 79 of 1996, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 on 20.12.1993. But it seems that the petition was returned and subsequently on 26.4.1994 it was represented. But, ultimately, it was numbered only in 1996.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner took diligent steps to file the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, on 20.12.1993 through her advocate, but she depended upon her advocate to pursue the same, But, unfortunatelly, she came to know only when the delivery was ordered and that the ex parte decree was not set aside. THEn immediate steps were taken to file a petition to condone the delay in representation and that petition in I.A. No. 78 of 1996 was brought to the Court and after getting orders on that application, the present application was brought before the court for orders. THE counsel who appeared earlier died on 12.6.1995. THEreafter the sale deed was said to be executed on 27.7.1995, pursuant to the order in Execution Petition.