Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.03.2006, made in C.M.A.No.58 of 2005, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, reversing the Order dated 22.07.2005, made in I.A.No.197 of 2005 in O.S.No.299 of 2004, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Melur.

2. Originally the suit in O.S.No.299 of 2004, was filed by one Mukkammal alias Irulayee on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff namely Mukkammal alias Irulayee died. The petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of the deceased Mukkammal alias Irulayee were added as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit. The respondent herein is the first defendant in the said suit. On service of notice, the respondent duly appeared before the lower Court. When the suit was in part heard stage, in pursuant to Tamil Nadu Civil Court Amendment Act, raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, the above suit was transferred from the file of learned II Additional Subordinate Judge to the file of the learned District Munsif, Melur and in the transferee court, the said suit was renumbered as O.S.No.299 of 2004. Admittedly, after the transfer, the transferee Court did not serve any notice on the respondent herein, intimating the date of hearing. Before the transferee Court namely, the learned District Munsif, Melur, the respondent herein did not appear. Therefore, he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed against him on 17.09.2004. Claiming that he had come to know about the passing of exparte decree only on 17.01.2005, through his new counsel, the respondent has filed I.A.No.197 of 2005, before the learned District Munsif, Melur, seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 17.09.2004. In support of the said application, the respondent has filed an affidavit wherein, he has stated that the transferee Court did not serve any notice on him and therefore, he could not know about the date of hearings which resulted in an exparte decree against him. He has further stated that, he came to know about the passing of the exparte decree only on 17.01.2005 and thereafter, within 30 days he has filed the said I.A.

3. In the said I.A., the petitioners herein have filed a detailed counter wherein, they have stated that though individual notice was not served on the respondent, it is very much in practice to exhibit the list of transferred cases with the relevant date of hearings in the Notice Board of transferor Court and transferee Court. They have further stated that, it is not only impracticable, but also impossible to serve individual notice in all transferred cases by the Courts. They have further stated that though, no individual notice was served on the respondent, he had knowledge about the pendency of the suit in the transferee Court. They have further stated that the said I.A., is barred by limitation since, it was not filed within the 30 days from the date of exparte decree.

4. Considering the materials available on record and the rival contentions made by both the parties, the learned District Munsif, Melur, by order dated 22.07.2005, has dismissed the said I.A., holding that it is highly impossible to serve individual notice to the parties in all the cases where transfer has been made and it is only for the parties to keep track of the case to know the date of hearing in the transferee Court and to appear.

5. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent has filed C.M.A.No.58 of 2005, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. On perusing the records and after considering the rival contentions made by both the parties, the learned Judge by order dated 06.03.2006, has allowed C.M.A.No.58 of 2005, holding the view that it is absolutely necessary under the law to serve individual notice on the parties by the transferee Court and also held that the starting point of limitation of 30 days t