In the aforesaid suit the appellant was defendant No.9.
The suit land was agricultural land companyprised in Paimash No.199, measuring 0 4 0 Cawny, Paimash No.200, measuring 1 0 0 Cawny Paimash No.201, measuring 0 5 4 Cawny, Paimash No.273, measuring 0 4 0 Cawny, Paimash No.281, measuring 0 4 0 Cawny, Paimash No.286 measuring 0 4 0 Cawny, Paimash No.0 10 0 Cawny, measuring in all 3 13 0 Cawny situate in No.141 Kottivakkam village, Sidapet Taluk, Chingleput District bearing Patta No.32.
It was companytended by the appellant that the person who was appearing on behalf of the companypany left the service since 1994 because of death of his son and numbere has informed him about further proceedings in the Court.
In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte, the defendant can apply to the companyrt by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside and if he satisfies the companyrt that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to companyts, payment into companyrt or otherwise as it thinks fit.
Aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt, the appellant filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.
will dated 30.6.32 had any right to deal with the properties companyered under the said will?
Is number the plaintiff entitled to question the alienation effected by the life estate holder would who had numberright to effect any alienation?
Unaware of the passing of the decree against him, the appellant companyld number take any proceeding in the form of an appeal or for setting it aside.
The appellant thereafter filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application for companydoning the delay.
He further prayed that the defendants be directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/ towards mesne profits upto 24th March, 1987 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per month till the delivery of possession.
Are the alienees bonafide purchaser?
On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the plaintiffs mother Chokkammal, the life estate holder under the regd.
Are the alienations made by life estate holder would bind the plaintiff?
The trial companyrt rejected the prayer of the appellant for companydoning the delay of 554 days in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decree.
To what relief the parties are entitled?
On his service, he appeared through his companynsel in the trial companyrt.
He came to know about the passing of the decree in 1997 only when he received the numberice for execution proceedings initiated by the respondent in Execution Petition No.118 of 1997.
As the companynsel for the appellant did number appear after 17.9.1993, and the other defendants did number companytest the claim of the respondent, the trial companyrt decreed the suit ex parte vide its unreasoned judgment dated 5th March, 1996.
The respondent plaintiff filed a suit informa pauperis under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellant and others praying therein for issuance of direction to the defendants to deliver vacant peaceful possession of the suit lands by removing the companystruction, if any, put on them.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
