VARADHARAJAN @ CHINNARAJAN Vs. P V NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 05.01.2015 made in I.A.No.530 of 2014 in O.S.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.

(2.) The petitioner is second defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 & 3 are the defendants 1 & 3 in O.S.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri. The first respondent filed the said suit against the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On receipt of summons, the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through one Advocate Mr.S.Manoharan, but they did not file written statement. An exparte decree was passed on 10.10.2000. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 filed I.A.No.530 of 2014 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 4498 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

(3.) According to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, their advocate Mr.S.Manoharan informed that written statement has been filed and suit is pending. During 2004, first respondent filed E.P.No.47 of 2004, in which, Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he inspected the suit property and filed report stating that the petitioner and second respondent are in possession of the suit property. Subsequently, first respondent did not follow the E.P.No.47 of 2004 and the said E.P. was dismissed on 16.11.2010. Again in January 2012, bailiff came to the house of the petitioner to serve notice and informed that E.P.No.40 of 2011 has been filed by the first respondent for arrest of the petitioner and respondents 2 and Immediately, they contacted their advocate and he did not give any proper answer and therefore, they engaged the present advocate and at that time, they came to know about the exparte decree dated 10.10.2000. Therefore, the delay is neither wilful nor wanton.