LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-255

S LALITHA Vs. NAGALAKSHMI

Decided On April 03, 2009
S.LALITHA Appellant
V/S
NAGALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and considered their respective submissions.

(2.) CRP.NPD.No,288 of 2008 has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1194 of 2003 in O.S.No,288 of 1998 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Dharapuram. I.A.No.1194 of 2003 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1547 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the exparte decree.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the respondents herein have filed an false affidavit before the trial Court in I.A.Nos.1194 & 1195 of 2003 in O.S.No,288 of 1998 and they have got knowledge about the suit in O.S.No,288 of 1998. THE learned counsel would contend that the respondents' father had filed O.S.No,404 of 1997 for partition of the properties, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court against which he had preferred A.S.No,38 of 1999, which was also dismissed dismissed and in A.S.No,38 of 1999 the respondents herein were impleaded as LRs of their father / plaintiff in O.S.No,404 of 1997, and hence the allegation in the affidavits in I.A.Nos.1194 & 1195 of 2003 that they do not have any knowledge about O.S.No,288 of 2008 cannot be true. But the fact remains that in A.S.No,38 of 1999 the respondents herein were impleaded as LRs of the plaintiff in O.S.No,404 of 1997 / appellant in A.S.No,38 of 1999 only in the year 2000 (I.A.No.134 of 2000 in A.S.No,38 of 1999). A.S.No,38 of 1999 was dismissed on 19.12.2001, but O.S.No,288 of 1998 was decreed as early as on 27.10.1998 itself. THEre is absolutely no material placed before the trial Court to show that during the pendancy of O.S.No,288 of 1998 the respondents herein were impleaded as LRs of the appellant in A.S.No,38 of 1999. Under such circumstances, as correctly held by the Court below, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the respondents herein to defend the case in O.S.No,288 of 1998.