(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 22.07.2011 passed in CMA No.2 of 2010, by the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur, this civil revision petition is focussed.
(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would run thus: O.S.No.63 of 2008 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff-Venugopal as against the original defendant Krishnan Chetti. The fact remains that even during the pendency of the suit, Krishnan Chetti died and the revision petitioners 1 to 4 were impleaded as his LRs. An ex parte decree was passed on 30.07.2008.; whereupon E.P. was filed; wherein, the property of the judgment debtor was brought for sale; R2-Senthil Kumar purchased the property. So far, the sale certificate was not issued and obviously delivery of the property was not effected. Subsequently, an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to get set aside the ex parte decree was presented on 27.08.2008, but it was returned on 17.10.2008. Subsequently, it was re-presented on 14.09.2009 and the delay of 316 days in re-presentation was condoned. Thereafter, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was numbered and after hearing both sides, it was dismissed on 15.07.2010. As against the said order of dismissal, CMA was filed, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the order of the lower Court.
(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, would pilot his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: