The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of taking the appropriate course of action, such as filing an application to set aside an exparte decree or filing an appeal, when challenging a judgment and decree.

1. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.356 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed the above suit for injunction and in that suit the revision petitioners filed the statement and on the side of the plaintiff/ 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 by filing proof affidavit and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. Thereafter, the defendants/ revision petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein did not appear and after giving an opportunity to the defendants the learned District Munsif, Ambattur passed the Judgement on 11.11.2010, decreeing the suit as prayed for. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1613 of 2010 to recall PW1 and that petition was dismissed as not maintainable as the suit was decreed on 11.11.2010. Against the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.356 of 2006 dated 11.11.2010, this revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.Doraisami for the revision petitioners that the Court below erred in decreeing the suit on merits when the revision petitioners/ defendants remained exparte and the learned District Munsif ought to have decreed the suit after setting the defendants exparte and ought not to have passed the Judgement on merits. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a complaint has already been given to the Registrar General, High Court regarding the conduct of the learned District Munsif, Ambattur in the matter of passing the Judgment on merits and action was taken on the complaint and considering the fact that the defendants did not appear, the Court should not have passed the Judgement on merits and therefore the Judgement and Decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside.

4. Admittedly, the revision petitioners have not filed any application to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.356 of 2006 by treating the same as exparte decree and they have also not filed an appeal against the said Judgement and Decree. According to me, if the Judgement and Decree are passed exparte, it is open to the parties either to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC., to set aside the exparte decree or to file a regular first appeal against the said Judgement and Decree. Therefore, even assuming that the Decree and Judgement passed by the Court below can be construed only as an exparte decree, the revision is not maintainable. Against that it is open to the revision petitioners to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC., to set aside the exparte decree or to file an appeal. Therefore, in my opinion, the revision is not maintainable.

5. Further, it is seen from the "A" Diary Extract as found in the typedset of papers that the suit was listed for trial on 1.10.2010 and there was no representation and it was adjourned to 4.10.2010. On 4.10.2010 it was adjourned to 6.10.2010 and even on 6.10.2010 there was no representation and thereafter the case was adjourned to 18.10.2010 and finally adjourned to 22.10.2010. On 22.10.2010 the plaintiff filed proof affidavit and marked as Exs.A1 to A12 and the case was adjourned to 30.10.2010 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. On 30.10.2010 the District Munsif was on Casual Leave and on 3.11.2010 the plaintiff was present and the defendants were called absent and there was no representation for the defendants and the plaintiffs side was closed and the case was adjourned to 8.11.2010 for examination of defendants side witnesses. The case was adjourned to 9.11.2010, 10.11.2010 and thereafter on 11.11.2010 and finally th case was adjourned to 15.11.2010 and on that date also there was no representation for the defendants and after hearing the arguments the case was adjourned to 16.11.2010 for Judgment. But Judgement was delivered on 11.11.2010. Further, it is seen from the Judgement of the trial Court that the learned District Munsif extracted the proof affidav