PONNUSAMY AND OTHERS Vs. JAYAMANI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 13.10.2014 made in I.A.No.1201 of 2013 in O.S.No.594 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants 1, 4 and 5, first respondent is plaintiff and second respondent is second defendant in O.S.No.594 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. First respondent filed said suit for partition against the petitioners 1 and 2, second respondent and third defendant/minor. Pending suit, third defendant/minor died and his mother, third petitioner was brought on record. The first petitioner and third defendant filed written statement and are contesting the suit. The suit was dismissed against the second defendant/second respondent herein on 27.11.2007 on the failure of the first respondent for taking steps to serve the second respondent. The first respondent filed I.A.No.1201 of 2013 to condone the delay of 2160 days in filing the petition to restore the suit against the second respondent.

(3.) According to the first respondent, she came to know about the dismissal of the suit against the second respondent only when the third petitioner filed written statement. Her previous counsel did not inform about the dismissal of the suit against the second respondent. The suit was dismissed for default. First respondent filed two applications in I.A.No.61 of 2011 to condone the delay of 9 days in filing the petition to restore the suit and I.A.No.913 of 2011 to restore the suit. Both the applications were allowed on payment of costs. In the said applications, the second respondent was served with notice by publication. The second respondent is residing with the petitioners 1 and 3. They have deliberately suppressed this fact and only when the first respondent engaged present counsel, she came to know about the dismissal of the suit against the second respondent.