KANNIAMMAL Vs. C. BOOPATHY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 06.02.2015 made in I.A.No.311 of 2013 in I.A.No.154 of 2011 in O.S.No.283 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram.

(2.) The petitioner is second defendant, first respondent is plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are the defendants 1, 3 to 5 in O.S.No.283 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram. The first respondent filed the said suit for partition, separate possession and declaration that settlement deed dated 09.03.2007 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent as null and void. The petitioner entered appearance through Advocate, subsequently, she did not contest the matter. An exparte preliminary decree was passed on 30.11.2010. The petitioner filed I.A.No.311 of 2013 to condone the delay of 639 days in filing the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.154 of 2011 which was dismissed for default.

(3.) According to the petitioner, originally, the suit was filed before the Court at Chengalpattu and subsequently, the suit was transferred to Court at Tambaram. The Advocate engaged by the petitioner is based in Chengalpattu. He did not follow the case in the Court at Tambaram and exparte preliminary decree was passed on 30.11.2010. The petitioner engaged present counsel and filed application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree on 5th March 2010. The said application was returned on the ground that earlier application I.A.No.154 of 2011 in O.S.No.283 of 2010 filed for condoning the delay to set aside the exparte decree was dismissed for default. The petitioner has filed the present application to condone the delay of 639 days in filing the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.154 of 2011. According to the petitioner, his previous counsel did not properly follow the case and did not inform about the stage of the case. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton.