PACHIAMMAL Vs. CHALLAN ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 12 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Aruppukottai are the revision petitioners.

(2.) AN ex parte decree was passed against them and they moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. There was a delay of 163 days in filing the application and the same was explained in LA. 1575 of 1996.

(3.) IN this connection, the previous conduct of the petitioner is also a relevant factor to be considered. There was prior litigation between the same parties and petitioners were successful in the earlier suit. The success in the earlier suit shows that they have been earnest in prosecuting litigation and the defence in the present case, also seems to be the plea of res judicata . I am not going into the merits of the case, but I am taking this circumstance only to show that petitioners were all along active in prosecuting the litigation and they were never party to dilatory tactics.