Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.15 of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2010, this revision petition has been filed. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court. 3. The long and short of the germane facts in a few broad stroke can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein-Gunasundari filed the suit for partition as against five defendants. It so happened that D1 to D3 were set ex-parte. D4 and D5 filed the memo expressing no objection for passing the decree; whereupon preliminary decree was passed. (ii) Subsequently, I.A.No.15 of 2012 was filed by the defendant No.1 to get the delay of 240 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to get the ex-parte decree set aside on the main ground that the petitioner/defendant No.1 was suffering from ill-health, including heart ailment and hence, he could not pursue the defence. (iii) The trial Court, after considering the pro et contra dismissed the said petition on the ground that there was no reason much less valid reason for condoning the huge delay of 240 days. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focussed by the first defendant on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/ defendant No.1, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could succinctly and pithily be set out thus: (i) The respondent herein/plaintiff is none but the sister of the revision petitioner/D1. The petitioner herein/D1 was suffering from heart ailment and skin trouble, wherefore he was not in a position to file the written statement in time and contest the matter. (ii) The preliminary decree was passed not on merits, but purely based on the 'no objection' given by D4 and D5 and other defendants having remained ex-parte. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the delay of 240 days could be condoned. 7. A mere poring over and perusal of the order passed by the lower Court would reveal that the lower Court took strict view of the matter and held that the reason furnished by the revision petitioner/D1 was not satisfactory. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the delay of 240 days could be condoned. 7. A mere poring over and perusal of the order passed by the lower Court would reveal that the lower Court took strict view of the matter and held that the reason furnished by the revision petitioner/D1 was not satisfactory. The fact remains that the litigation is one for partition among close relatives and it appears, the judgement and decree passed was not on merits, but purely on the concession given by D4 and D5 and due to the non-appearance of D1 to D3. 8. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner/D1 was not suffering from such ill-health and I could see no wilful abstention on the part of the revision petitioner/D1 in participating in the proceedings. The medical records, no doubt, produced before the Court, even though not marked, would reveal that the petitioner/D1 was actually taking prolonged medical treatment. As such, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the revision petitioner/D1 to contest the suit, however, subject to payment of cost. 9. Accordingly, the delay is condoned as prayed in the I.A.No.15 of 2012 subject to payment of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) payable by the revision petitioner herein/D1 to the first respondent/plaintiff. On such compliance, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 can be taken up and disposed of. In the even of setting aside the ex-parte decree, the original suit itself shall be disposed of within three months thereafter. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein/plaintiff would air the grievance that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as advocate commissioner's fee during final decree proceedings and in view of this order, the final decree proceedings would get obliterated and in the event of getting a fresh preliminary decree and the plaintiff filing a fresh final decree proceedings, the plaintiff would have to incur huge financial commitment. 11. I would like to observe that whatever expenses incurred by the plaintiff would be the cost in the cause and depending upon the ultimate decision, the party at fault has to bear it. 12. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected micellaneous petition is closed.