RAJA Vs. NAINAR MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crp.Sr(Md)Nos.30738 and 30740 of 2017 filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 11.09.2012 made in I.A.Nos.263 and 264 of 2010 in O.S.No.208 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. CMP(MD)Nos.9316 and 9317 of 2017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1689 days in filing the above Civil Revision petitions.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent filed O.S.No.208 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai, for declaration to declare the resolution passed by the Karuppatti Village Panchayat dated 005.2006 to evict the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property as null and void and also for damages for illegally demolishing the portion of the suit property. When the suit was taken up on 19.12007, the defendants were called absent and were set ex parte and on the same day, the learned Judge decreed the suit as prayed for.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the above fact was not known to the petitioner and the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.208 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.263 of 2010 to condone the delay of 873 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order and I.A.No.264 of 2010 to set aside the ex parte order dated 19.12.2007 in O.S.No.208 of 2006. The learned Judge by order dated 11.09.2012 dismissed I.A.Nos.263 and 264 of 2010 since written statement was not filed along with the application. It is stated by the petitioner that the above fact was also not informed to the petitioner or either of the defendants in the suit.