AYYAVOO Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 who were petitioners in I.A. No: 487 of 2007 in O.S. No: 43 of 2005 against an order of dismissal of their plea to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them on 05.07.2007.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case pleaded by both the parties before the lower Court are as follows:-THE suit schedule properties are ancestrol properties. On 02.09.1989 the properties were partitioned and the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant. THE suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No: 43 of 2005 was before the Sub Court, Mettur. THE case of the revision petitioners was that some compromise talk was going on between the parties and hence, they did not appear before the Court on 05.07.2007 and for their absence on that particular day, they were set ex-parte by the Court and hence, this revision before this Court.'.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff would submit in his argument that the petitioners had no bonafide in applying to the Court to set aside the ex-parte order. THEy have prepared the affidavit petition long prior to the filing of the petition before the Court and the petition was filed belatedly for the purpose of prolonging the case and therefore, the lower Court had rightly dismissed the petition as they had no intention to participate in the trial. He would further submit that the suit was in a part-heard stage and yet another suit in O.S. No: 66 of 2006 was clubbed together and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in O.S. No: 66 of 2006 and the lower Court found that the application filed by the petitioners are highly belated and had come to the conclusion of dismissing the same and, therefore, the order of the lower Court need not be interfered with and the revision petition may be dismissed.