Judgment :- This revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1484 of 2008 in O.S.No.311 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurantakkam. 2. The said suit in O.S.311 of 1996 was filed for partition by the respondents herein against the revision petitioner. An exparte decree was passed in the suit on 211. 2000. The revision petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2759 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, against which the present revision has been filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, before the trial Court at the time of trial his counsel has reported no instructions and on that score the defendant was set exparte and the exparte decree was passed without giving any notice to the defendant/revision petitioner. The suit was filed by the first plaintiff alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and R2 herein – minor Sarkunan was born through the wedlock. But according to the defendant in the written statement, the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the defendant. It is admitted that a final decree proceedings is pending in I.A.No.862 of 2008 in O.S.No.311 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Madurantakkam. It is settled proposition of law that before passing a final decree any number of preliminary decree can be passed. 4. Under such circumstances, the revision petitioner is at liberty to file necessary application to get himself impleaded in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.862 of 2008 in O.S.No.311 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Madurantakkam and is at liberty to vent his grievances in the final decree proceedings. 5. With the above observations, the Revision is disposed of. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.