1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(PD)(MD) No.2397 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION(MD) No.1 of 2011 Jeyabharathi .. Petitioner/Respondent/ Defendant Vs. 1.Vasanthi 2.Minor Ganesamoorthy 3.Minor Gayathri (Minor respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother, first respondent) .. Respondents/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 03.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009 in Original Suit No.384 of 2001 by the District Munsif Court, Palani. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 03.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009 in Original Suit No.384 of 2001 by the District Munsif Court, Palani. 2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.384 of 2001 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their shares. Due to non-appearance on the part of the respondents/plaintiffs, Original Suit No.384 of 2001 has been dismissed for default on 14.03.2005 and in filing a petition for setting aside the dismissal order, there is a delay of 1553 days and in order to condone the same, the present petition has been filed by the plaintiffs as petitioners. The Court below without considering the objections raised on the side of the respondent/defendant has erroneously allowed the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that even though a detailed counter has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009 on the side of the respondent/defendant, the Court below without considering the nature of objections raised on the side of the respondent/defendant has erroneously passed the impugned order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 4. It is seen from the order passed by the Court below that the Court below without considering the reason given in the petition and also the objections raised on the side of the respondent/defendant has simply passed the impugned order. Considering the fact that the Court below has not at all considered the reason given in the petition as well as objections raised on the side of the respondent/defendant, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court below is absurd and the same is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Court below. 5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009 in Original Suit No.384 of 2001 by the District Munsif Court, Palani is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009 in Original Suit No.384 of 2001 is remitted to the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. The District Munsif Court, Palani is strictly directed to dispose of Interlocutory Application No.340 of 2009 in Original Suit No.384 of 2001 purely on merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Palani. +One cc to M/s.M.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate, SR.No.45669 smn rl/3c – 9.1.2012 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2397 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 22.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/