POTHURAJ Vs. SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order, dated 5.1.2013, made in I. A. No. 175 of 2011 in O. S. No. 30 of 2004, refusing to condone the delay of 2065 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, the petitioner has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The suit in O. S. No. 30 of 2004 was laid for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 6/20th share. The suit was originally filed against 13 defendants, claiming that the defendants 1 to 5 have sold the properties to various third parties, pending the suit, the plaintiff sought to implead the defendants 14 to 38 in the suit in I. A. No. 744 of 2004. The said application was allowed and the defendants 14 to 38 were impleaded in the suit. The petitioner claims that since all the defendants remained exparte, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Claiming that he is the 14th defendant, so impleaded, pursuant to the order made in I. A. No. 744 of 2004, the petitioner filed an application in I. A. No. 715 of 2011, seeking condonation of delay as aforesaid. The reasons for the delay as set out in the affidavit are that the petitioner was actually working in Dubai at the relevant point of time and the plaintiff had obtained a decree by giving false address and a wrong father's name. He has also stated that he never refused to receive the summons and the said refusal has been brought about by the plaintiff in collusion with the Court Bailiff.

(3.) It is the further contention of the plaintiff that there was no proper service in the suit on him and only after the plaintiff prevented him from putting up construction in the property purchased by him, he came to know about the exparte decree and hence the delay should be condoned. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff contending that the applicant is not a necessary party to the suit since he is a pendente lite purchaser. The suit was instituted on 24. 04. 2000 and the defendant purchased the property on 17.7.2000. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendant being a pendente lite purchaser is not necessary party to the suit. It was also contended that she never wanted to implead the petitioner herein as a party to the suit. The person sought to be impleaded is one Pothuraj, S/o. Maharajan, doing Muruku business at Sivagangai. The petitioner herein would claim that he is the son of one Andi Ambalam residing at State Bank Street, Vempathur Post, Manamadurai Taluk at Sivagangai District.