Challenging the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.752 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, the legal representatives of the deceased 18th defendant have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. The respondents 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Balaraman. The 1st respondent Kasthuri died pending the above Civil Revision Petition and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 3 to 10.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.752 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, to pass a preliminary decree and to allot 1/9th share to him and for separate possession. The defendants were made ex-parte in the suit. The Trial Court passed an ex parte preliminary decree on 28.01.1998 allotting 1/9th share to the plaintiff. The said suit was filed as against 24 defendants and all the defendants were set ex parte and a preliminary decree was passed. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.752 of 1989, the plaintiff filed a final decree application in I.A.No.742 of 1999. During the pendency of the final decree application, the sole plaintiff died on 28.01.2007. The respondents 10 to 31 in the final decree application remained ex-parte and without impleading the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff, the Trial Court passed the final decree on 25.04.2007. Further, in the final decree application, the Trial Court had not mentioned about the respondents 5 to 15 and the service of notice to the respondents was not completed.

3. Aggrieved over the passing of final decree in I.A.No.742 of 1999, the legal representatives of the deceased 18th defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.13 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee and the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal finding that the death of the sole plaintiff will not abate the proceedings.

4. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.31 of 2007, the legal representatives of the deceased 18th defendant preferred a Second appeal in S.A.No.266 of 2011 and this Court, by judgment dated 2.4.2014 set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.31 of 2007 and the judgment and decree made in I.A.No.742 of 1999 in O.S.No.752 of 1989 and allowed the Second Appeal and remanded the matter back to the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee for fresh disposal after impleading the legal representatives of the deceased parties.

5. In the present Civil Revision Petition, which was filed on 2.8.2011, the legal representatives of the 18th defendant have challenged the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.752 of 1989.

6. Heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Parthasarathy learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 9.

7. The main contention raised by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Trial Court had passed a preliminary decree by non-speaking judgment. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is against the settled propositions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that since the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is against the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C., and also the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court, the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said judgment and decree is maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) 2003 (6) SCC 675 (Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai), wherein in paragraph No.38, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:

(1)