KESAVAN Vs. KODIYAN KRISHNAN AND CHINNATHAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants 4, 8 and 9 respectively.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 476 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Ulunderpet for partition against the defendants 1 to 10. The suit was decreed ex parte. The respondents filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I. A. No. 893 of 1995 to condone the delay of 852 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. A conditional order was passed on 9.1.1997 by the lower court. On complying with the condition imposed, the petition came to be allowed on 21.2.1997.The plaintiff , the petitioner herein has challenged these impugned orders in these revisions before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Dhanyakumar, the counsel for the petitioner, while attacking the impugned orders, would bring to the notice of this court that a similar petition to condone the delay filed by the first respondent, the fourth defendant, was earlier dismissed and that the second application for identical relief is not maintainable. He would further submit that though as far as the respondents 2 and 3, the defendants 8 and 9 are concerned this is the first application, there is no proper explanation given in the said application to condone the delay and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.