Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. KARUPPIAH, J.
Sengodan & Another
Versus
Natesan
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1846 of 2003 & 801 of 2004
Decided on : 27-06-2014
exparte decree - Specific Performance of Contract - Order 9, Rule 13 CPC - O.S.No.139 of 2001, R.E.P.No.39 of 2003, I.A.No.17 of 2004, R.E.P.No.41 of 2002 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the events leading to the exparte decree. The court emphasized that the revision petitioners were well aware of the proceedings and their actions were not in line with their claims, leading to the dismissal of the revision petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract and obtained an exparte decree as the revision petitioners remained exparte. The revision petitioners later sought to set aside the exparte decree and delay in filing the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision petitioners were aware of the proceedings and their claims of not being informed about the suit proceedings were false. The court dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the orders of the lower court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revision petitioners' claim of not being informed about the suit proceedings was valid and whether the exparte decree should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision petitioners' actions did not align with their claims and that they were well aware of the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the revision petitions.
Final Decision: Both the civil revision petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.
1. The revision petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit, filed these two revision petitions against the fair and decreetal orders dated 13.11.2003 and 14.09.2004 passed in R.E.P.No.39 of 2003 and in I.A.No.17 of 2004 respectively in O.S.No.139 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari.
2. For the sake of convenience, the defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit are referred as the revision petitioners and the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as the respondent hereafter.
3. The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.139 of 2001 on 26.04.2001 against the revision petitioners for specific performance of a contract and for a consequential relief of injunction. Since the revision petitioners remained exparte in the above said suit, the trial Court has passed an exparte decree on 15.11.2002.
4. The respondent herein filed an execution petition in R.E.P.No.41 of 2002 for execution of sale deed as per the decree passed in the original suit. The Executing Court has executed a sale deed on 27.06.2003 and the above said execution petition was closed.
5. After disposal of the above said execution petition, both the revision petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.17 of 2004 and prayed for to condone the delay of 288 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 15.11.2002.
6. During pendency of the above said petition, an Execution Petition in R.E.P.No.39 of 2003 was filed by the respondent wherein seeking delivery of possession as per the sale deed executed by the Court on 27.06.2003 in the earlier proceeding.
7. The Court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed the I.A.No.17 of 2004 and in the Execution Petition in E.P.No.39 of 2003, delivery was ordered.
8. Aggrieved over the orders passed in the Interlocutary application and the execution petition, the revision petitioners have preferred these two civil revision petitions.
9. The first revision petitioner filed an affidavit on his own and also on behalf of the second revision petitioner in support of the application in I.A.No.17 of 2004, in which, it is stated that the respondent herein had filed the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 15.07.1995 and in the above said suit, the revision petitioners have received summons and both of them engaged a counsel namely, Mr. K.M. Sellamuthu, Advocate, Sankari for defending the case. It is further stated in the affidavit that both the revision petitioners are working as Lorry Drivers and both of them were away from their home for continuously for several days and therefore, the revision petitioners had requested their counsel to inform them the date of hearing in advance. The counsel filed vakalath only for the second revision petitioner on 10.08.2001 and thereafter, the above said counsel did not inform anything about the hearings. Only on 20.09.2003, Sankari Police came to the suit property and took the first revision petitioner to the police station for enquiry. Then only, the first revision petitioner came to know that the suit was decreed exparte on 15.11.2002. It is also averred in the affidavit that the second revision petitioner was served with notice in R.E.P.No.41 of 2002 and engaged a counsel namely, Thiru.Muruganandham in the above said execution proceeding. The first revision petitioner was away from home and no notice was served on him in the above said execution proceeding. The second revision petitioner filed his objection, but the Executing Court has passed an order on 04.06.2003. The first revision petitioner was under bona fide impression that the suit was pending and both the revision petitioners were away from their home as they are working as lorry drivers and hence, the written statement was not filed and an exparte decree was passed on 15.11.2002 and therefore, prayed for to set aside the above said exparte decree.
10. The respondent herein has filed a detailed counter in the above said petition in I.A.No.17 of 2004 and denied
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
