S. SAHUL HAMEED Vs. A. FAISALKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.11.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.398, 354 and 399 of 2009 in O.S.No.144 of 2006 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) The revision petitioners in all the revisions are defendants and respondents are plaintiffs in the above suit which was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit, all the revision petitioners remained exparte and exparte decree was passed in the suit on 28.08.2007. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to 5 filed three petitions to set aside the exparte decree passed against them along with the delay condonation petition to condone the delay of 255, 529 and 91 days in filing the petitions to set aside the exparte decree. The Court below declined to condone the delay, against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases/defendants would contend that the revision petitioner in CRP.481/10 who is the eldest male member of the family is residing at Saudi Arabia for employment and he entrusted the case to one Kallil Rahaman who is none other than the 2nd defendant's husband's brother, who in turn, has entrusted the case with one Mr.C.Vijayakumar, advocate at Thuckalay and the said Vijayakumar did not follow up the case properly and did not give proper instructions to the parties and allowed the suit be decreed exparte and thereafter, the decree holders filed E.P and also filed E.A for appointment of advocate commissioner which was ordered. Only when the advocate commissioner came to the suit property on 31.01.2009, the petitioners came to know about the exparte decree passed against them and thereafter contacted their advocate and filed petitions to set aside the exparte decree with the above delay. Since the delay has occurred due to the fault on the part of the advocate, the same ought to have been condoned. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned orders and to condone the above delay. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:-