Court dismisses application to set aside ex-parte decree after 1600-day delay, emphasizing law of limitation.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the ex-parte decree due to a 1600-day delay, citing lack of valid reasons. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to the law of limitation, the court held that the petitioners' negligence and failure to provide sufficient reasons for the delay warranted upholding the Subordinate Judge's order of dismissal. The court highlighted the petitioners' duty to actively participate in court proceedings and deemed their explanations as lacking bona fide. The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and the miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed dated 27.09.1999.
2. Maintenance claims by the plaintiffs.
3. Delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Deed Dated 27.09.1999:
The plaintiffs argued that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the third defendant on 27.09.1999 was not valid. They claimed that the property in question was ancestral and had been partitioned as per a deed dated 09.02.1987, with half belonging to the first plaintiff and the other half to the first defendant. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the sale deed was invalid and demanded a partition of the property into two shares.

The third defendant contended that the partition deed dated 09.02.1987 did not exist and that the plaintiffs and the first defendant were living as a joint family. He further stated that the first defendant had executed the sale deed for himself and his minor daughter (the first plaintiff) for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and that he had since constructed a building and was running a shop on the property.

2. Maintenance Claims by the Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant had failed to provide maintenance, education, and medical expenses, and had not contributed to the marriage expenses of the first plaintiff. They sought maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month for the second plaintiff and Rs. 75,000/- for the marriage expenses.

The third defendant argued that the plaintiffs' claims were false and that the second plaintiff had signed as a witness in the sale deed dated 05.05.1995, thereby acknowledging the transaction. He also denied the allegations of the first defendant's drunkenness and illegal activities.

3. Delay in Filing the Application to Set Aside the Ex-parte Decree:
The suit was set ex-parte on 31.01.2003 due to the non-appearance of defendants 2 and 3, who then filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of 1600 days. The petitioners claimed that their advocate had informed them that the suit was pending, but later they learned it was set ex-parte.

The respondents argued that the delay was not adequately explained and that the petitioners had been negligent in defending the case. They emphasized that the petitioners had failed to provide reasons for the delay for each day, as required by the Apex Court's directives.

Judgment:
The court dismissed the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, citing a lack of valid reasons for the 1600-day delay. The court referenced previous judgments emphasizing that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and should not be overridden by a liberal approach to condonation of delay. The court noted that the petitioners' plea lacked bona fide and showed gross negligence.

The court concluded that the petitioners had a duty to be vigilant in court proceedings and to regularly contact their advocate. The reasons provided by the petitioners were deemed unacceptable, and the order of dismissal by the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, was upheld. The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---