Ponnachi and Others vs Ranjitha Bai, Nallathampi and Daisy

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—The petitioners have filed a petition to condone the delay of 263 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte

preliminary decree. The said application was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.

According to the petitioners, the first respondent-Ranjitha Bai, the plaintiff, who is the sister of the first defendant, filed the suit for partition and

separate possession. The petitioners are defendants 4 to 13. Though the Court Guardian was appointed to contest the matter on behalf of minors,

on 28.8.2001, ex-parte preliminary decree was passed as against the petitioners and the minors, without service of summons on the petitioners.

Only when they received the notice in the final decree application, they came to know on 17.6.2002 through their lawyer that the ex-parte

preliminary decree was passed on 28.8.2001. Thereafter, they have filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and also an

application in I.A.No.561 of 2002 for condoning the delay of 263 days in seeking to set aside the said ex-parte decree. In the enquiry, the first

defendant - Selvadoss was examined as P.W.1 and on the death of the said Selvadoss, the present petitioners 11 to 16, namely his widow and

children were brought on record. The trial Court, without considering the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners, dismissed the

application, Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of the decisions of this Court reported in (i) Devi and 6 others Vs. K. Jayaraman (Cavetor),

; (ii) R.M. Arunachalam Vs. PL.R. Arunachalam Chettiar and Others, ; (iii) Karunakaran Vs. Santha, , (iv) Shanmuga Sadachara Servai vs.

Thirugnanam Servai 1999 (II) M.L.J. 616 and (v) Thirumurthy vs. Muthammal 2003 (3) M.L.J. 369 , as also the decision of the Supreme Court in

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, , would contend that even though the respondents did not adduce

any proper evidence, the trial Court, without giving any valid reason, dismissed the application. According to the counsel, admittedly the summons

have not been served on the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have got a valid ground to seek for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the

delay may be condoned.

I have gone through the impugned order and also perused the citations mentioned supra.

It is true that it is the view of the Apex Court that the discretion vested in the Court in the matter of dealing with the application filed u/s 5 of the

Limitation Act is to be exercised in the way in which the judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well

understood. The words ""sufficient cause"" receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence nor inaction nor

want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant.

However, in this case, the impugned order would indicate that the Court Guardian was appointed for the minors. On behalf of minors, written

statement has been filed by the Court Guardian and the same was contested. Ultimately, ex-parte preliminary decree was passed. Though it is

contended that without service of summons on the petitioners, the ex-parte preliminary decree was passed, it is noticed from the impugned order

that several notices were sent to the petitioners and the same were refused and thereafter, paper publication was made and despite the same, they

did not choose to appear and only in that context, the Court Guardian was appointed for minors alone and he was allowed to file the written

statement on behalf of minors. Therefore, it cannot be stated that notice has never been sent to the petitioners.

Further, the judgment rendered in the ex-parte preliminary decree dated 28.8.2001 would clearly reveal that the written statement has been filed

on behalf of the minors by the Court Guardian, giving full details of the case averments. Admittedly, all the defendants are living in the same village.

When the Court Guardian filed the written statement on behalf of minors, after getting instructions from their family, it is strange to note the

contention of the defendants that they never knew about the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the suit has been filed as early as in the year 1994

itself. Moreover, P.W.1 Selvadoss who is the first defendant, stated before the Court that he did not know about the paper publication as he did

not use to read newspapers. A reading of his deposition would further indicate that the other defendants also were served.

Under those circumstances, the finding given by the trial Court that the petitioners already knew about the pendency of the suit for partition and

even then they did not choose to remain, in spite of services of summons and have allowed the case to go ex-parte, cannot be said to be wrong.

Though the decisions referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners would indicate that even though there is no sufficient cause, the Court

should adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay. This observation would not help the petitioners in view of the fact that there is want of bona-

fides on the part of the petitioners. Further, the trial court has given a finding that there was deliberate intention to avoid the appearance before the

Court.

It is also seen from the records that on behalf of the first defendant-Selvadoss, a counter affidavit has been filed to the said I.A.No.561 of

2002 through counsel, wherein it is stated that proper notice and summons were taken to the defendants and they wilfully and wantonly remained

ex-parte, that several times, summons were taken and paper publication was also made and each and every proceedings are known to all the

defendants to the suit. The application was opposed through the counter on the ground that instead of filing an appeal against the decree passed on

28.8.2001 on merits, the defendants should not have been allowed to file the application to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the ex-parte

preliminary decree.

Since there is lack of bona-fide on the part of the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed at

the admission stage itself. Consequently, C.M.P.No.2545 of 2004 is also dismissed.