- (1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, in E.A.No.237 of 2010 in E.P.No.53 of 2007 in O.S.No.85 of 2002, this civil revision petition is filed.
(2.) DESPITE printing the name of the respondent, there is no representation. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED as against her mother-in-law, namely, Angammal, so to say, her deceased husband Angamuthu's mother. (ii) Preliminary decree and final decrees were passed, based on the ratiocination that daughter-in-law and mother-in-law were entitled to half share each. (iii) While so, the daughter-in-law-the respondent herein filed the E.P. The mother-in-law remained absent initially and hence, the E.P proceeded ex-parte and delivery was effected, as per the E.P. (iv) Subsequently, the mother-in-law filed the application to get the ex-parte order set aside and the fact also remains that certain errors crept in the E.P. regarding description of property. (v) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of delivering half portion, i.e. 21 cents in the first item of the suit property, as found allotted in the final decree, the entire property, i.e. 42 cents were delivered in favour of the daughter-in-law-the respondent herein, in the first item of the suit property. (vi) Subsequently, the mother-in-law herself filed application to get set aside the ex-parte order in the E.P and also for rectifying the E.P. and for redelivery. (vii) It appears, the mistakes committed were rectified record wise. However, when E.P. was pending, the application E.A.No.237 of 2010 was filed with the following prayer: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED (viii) After hearing both sides, the said E.A. was dismissed by the lower Court. ;