S RAMALINGAM Vs. SUBBULAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THIS revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.18456 of 2007 in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai which was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2210 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 dated 14.8.2001. The reasoning stated in the affidavit to the petition for condoning the delay of 2210 days is that the counsel who appeared for the petitioner in I.A.NO.18456 of 2007/defendant in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 was hospitalised in the month of August 2000 and subsequently died on 1.6.2001 but no one has informed the defendant/petitioner in I.A.No.18456 of 2007 about the death of his counsel which resulted in an exparte decee being passed in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 on 14.8.2001 and that only through the notice received in R.C.A.No,346 of 1996 dated 4.10.2007, he came to know about the passing of an exparte decree against him in O.S.No,7197 of 1999. Immediately, through the present counsel, he had filed the said application in I.A.No.18456 of 2007 in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2210 days.

(3.) THE grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that, who is the owner of the superstructure of the plaint schedule property is the matter to be decided only in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 and that the respondent herein/plaintiff in O.S.No,7197 of 1999 has also failed to implead the said temple viz., Sri Karuneeswarar Devasthanam who is admittedly the owner of the land as a party in the suit.