SUSEELA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 08. 07. 2009 in I. A. No. 436 of 2006 in O. S. No. 411 of 1990 passed by the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to set aside the ex-parte Preliminary Decree dated 09. 03. 1994.

(2.) THE Trial Court while passing order in I. A. No. 436 of 2006, dated 08. 07. 2009 has interalia come to the conclusion that the petitioner has projected the I. A. No. 436 of 2006 after a lapse of 12 years from the date of passing of the Preliminary Decree and resultantly dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is the sister of the second respondent/plaintiff, who has a share in the suit properties and the first respondent/plaintiff has not arrayed the revision petitioner as one of the parties to the main suit in O. S. No. 411 of 1990 and the suit has been filed before the trial Court to defraud the petitioner and in the main suit a Preliminary Decree has been passed on 08. 07. 2009 and a Final Decree proceedings have been initiated in I. A. No. 695 of 2005 and in the Final Decree application a Commissioner has been appointed and he is to file his report and at this stage, the matter is pending and moreover the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has projected the I. A. No. 436 of 2006 after a long lapse of 12 years and the revision petitioner has no other alternative but to file an application to set aside the exparte Preliminary Decree by condoning the intervening delay and since the impugned order of the trial Court in I. A. No. 436 of 2006 suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality the same needs to be set aside by this Court sitting in revision.