Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 2. This revision petition has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.848 of 2008 in O.S.No.534 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Gudiyatham. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the suit is for partition and that the petitioner was set exparte in the suit and to set aside the exparte decree, there was a delay in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to condone the delay of 1029 days, he had filed I.A.No.848 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was dismissed, since there was no acceptable or valid reasoning in the affidavit to the petition for condoning the delay of 1029 days. 3. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, a final decree is yet to be passed in the suit and a petition for final decree is pending. Under such circumstances, it is open to the revision petitioner to get himself impleaded in the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.534 of 2004 and to raise all his defence in the final decree proceedings. It is well settled proposition of law that before passing a final decree in a partition suit, any number of preliminary decree can be passed. With the above observations, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.