MARAGATHAM Vs. RAMASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in I.A.No.857 of 2006 in I.A.No.248 of 2001 in O.S.No.359 of 2000 is under challenge before this Court at this revision.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the third plaintiff in O.S.No.359 of 2000. I.A.No.857 of 2006 was filed to set aside the ex-parte final decree passed in I.A.No.248 of 2001 in O.S.No.359 of 2000.

(3.) IT is seen from the adjudication paper in I.A.No.248 of 2001 in O.S.No.359 of 2000, a final decree application, notice has been served to the defendants on 13.8.2001 itself and they were set ex-parte and a Commissioner was appointed to effect the partition in accordance with the preliminary decree and the Commissioner has also filed his report and plan and thereafter a final decree was passed in terms of the preliminary decree, on 22.08.2003. The third plaintiff in O.S.No.359 of 2000, is the revision petitioner herein. IT is pertinent to note that the final decree application in I.A.No.248 of 2001 was filed by the defendants in O.S.No.359 of 2000. The prayer in the plaint in O.S.No.359 of 2000 is, to partition 1/3 share of the suit property. Since the defendants have submitted to decree, the shares of the plaintiff as well as the defendants have been declared in the preliminary decree. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have not preferred a petition to set aside the ex-parte final decree passed in the suit. The third plaintiff has preferred an application in I.A.No.857 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.