L. MUNIYANDY Vs. M. PATHAMUTHU SAHARA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the revision petitioner is that the respondents as plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner herein in O.S.No.6 of 2011 before the learned Sub-Court, Srivilliputtur for recovery of possession. According to the respondents herein, they are the absolute owner of the suit property. In the said suit the revision petitioner was set exparte as he has not filed the written statement with in the stipulated period and subsequently an ex-parte decree was passed against the revision petitioner on 26.09.2011. In order to set aside the ex-parte decree an application in I.A.No.318 of 2013 was filed with a delay of 675 days along with written statement.

(2.) It is further contended on the side of the revision petitioner that the respondents herein filed detailed counter affidavit to the condone delay application wherein it is stated that the revision petitioner earlier filled a suit in O.S.No.369 of 2006 before the learned District Munsif Court, Srivilliputtur for Permanent Injunction against respondents herein. In the said suit the revision petitioner claimed title through the Sale Agreement dated 05.03.2004 said to have entered into between the revision petitioner and the respondents herein. However, the respondents herein denied the execution of sale agreement. Thereafter the revision petitioner filed the suit for Specific Performance against the respondents herein in O.S.No.82 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Court at Srivilliputtur. In the said suit the respondents herein took out an application in I.A.No.336 of 2007 to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. on the ground that the suit was hit by Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner. However it was allowed by the Learned District Judge by order dated 17.11.2009. Therefore, the question of setting aside the ex-parte decree by condoning the delay of 675 days does not arise, since the claim of title made by revision petitioner has already been negatived by the Learned Principal District Judge in I.A.No.336 of 2007 in OS.No.82 of 2007. Further, the reason assigned by the revision petitioner is not valid one and same the cannot be accepted. Hence, the respondents prayed the Court below to dismiss the condone delay application.

(3.) Upon considering the revival submission on either side the Court below by order dated 07.07.2015 dismissed the condone delay application. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner has come up with this civil revision petition.