The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a reasoned ex-parte judgment and the duty of the plaintiff to prove the case to the satisfaction of the court.

1. Anim adverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2009 in C.M.A. No.4 of 2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram in confirming the order dated 20.6.2008 in I.A. No.42 of 2008 in O.S. No.25 of 2003 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Port Novo, the Revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have focussed the present civil revision petition.

2. The First Appellate Court, viz. learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram, while passing the judgment in C.M.A. No.4 of 2008 on 30.9.2009, has among other things, observed that no endeavour was made on the side of the Appellants (revision petitioners/defendants) to cross-examine the witness P.W.1/Balaiya and further cross-examination of P.W.1 was not done and added further not a single appellant had appeared before the Court to conduct the proceeding in O.S. No.25 of 2003 and they had deliberately protracted the matter and came to a resultant conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.42 of 2008 in dismissing the petition was a proper one and could not be interfered with and dismissed the Appeal without costs.

3. The Learned counsel for the Revision petitioners/Defendants submits that both the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had committed an error of jurisdiction, in refusing to set aside the Ex parte Decree against the petitioners and in fact, the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for allowing I.A. No.42 of 2003 in O.S. No.25 of 2003 on the file of the trial Court. However, these vital aspects of the matter were not adverted to by the Courts below in a real and proper perspective, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants projects the argument that the respondent/plaintiff (P.W.1) was already cross-examined in part on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and atleast both the Courts below ought to have allowed the I.A. No.42 of 2003 on terms, to compensate the respondent/plaintiff for any damages suffered by him.

5. In response, the Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the petitioners/defendants were protracting and delaying the proceedings in the main suit by not coming forward to cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff (P.W.1) on 11.1.2008, 21.1.2008 and 24.1.2008 respectively and in fact, the petitioners had not appeared before the trial Court at the time of calling of the case and only after adequate opportunity being provided to the petitioners/defendants, they were set Ex parte and ultimately an Ex parte Decree came to be passed on 14.6.2004.

6. It comes to be known that the Revision petitioner/first defendant filed I.A. No.197 of 2004 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Trial Court praying to set aside the Ex parte Decree and the same was dismissed by the trial Court inter-alia observing that without any reason, the petitioners(defendants) had remained absent and presently, with a view to protract the proceedings of the suit, had filed the present application. A Final Decree application under Order 26 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed for passing of a final decree, based on the Ex parte Decree passed in the main suit on 14.6.2004. Immediately, the First Revision petitioner/First Defendant filed C.M.A. No.18 of 2005 before the Learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram being aggrieved against the order in I.A. No.197 of 2004. However, C.M.A. No.18 of 2005 was allowed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram setting aside the Ex parte decree. Therefore, the main suit in O.S. No.25 of 2003 was taken on file and proceeded further.

7. It is not in dispute that I.A. No.75 of 2007 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff to implead the party. The said I.A. got dismissed on 11.1.2008. Later, the suit was posted to 21.1.2008. It was adjourned to 24.1.2008. Since P.W.1 was not cross examined, the case was adjourned to 31.1.2008 with an observation that no further adjournment would be granted