BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. Ilangovan, J.
Sankilikaruppan & Another - Appellant
Vs.
Mariappan - Respondent
C.R.P (MD) No. 1866 of 2022 & CMP (MD) No. 8393 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Civil Revision Petition - The court clarified that against the dismissal of a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, only an appeal will lie and not a revision. The appellate court's interpretation of the word 'rejection' was deemed improper, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Koushik Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Ameena Begam & another (CDJ 2024 SC 002) was cited to support this position.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of a property. The suit was decreed ex-parte due to non-appearance of the petitioners. An application to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal stating that it was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court's interpretation of the word 'rejection' in Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC was improper. It cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to clarify that only an appeal will lie against the dismissal of a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the word 'rejection' in Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC and whether an appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate court's interpretation of the word 'rejection' was improper and clarified that only an appeal will lie against the dismissal of a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, and the orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the appellate court to consider the appeal on its own merit by giving opportunity to both sides.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil, in CMA No.02 of 2021 on 30/06/2022.)
1. This civil revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil, in CMA No.02 of 2021, dated 30/06/2022.
2. The facts in brief:-
3. To set aside the ex-parte decree, they filed IA No.172 of 2018. That came to be dismissed by the trial court. Against which, CMA No.2 of 2021 was preferred by the petitioners. After hearing both sides, the appellate court dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal is not maintainable, since the order is passed on merits and not a rejection order.
4. Against which, this civil revision petition has been preferred.
5. Only short point arises for consideration here.
6. An application was filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree. That was dismissed. Automatically only appeal will lie as per Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC. But the appellate court has taken a novel stand that it is not a rejection order. Only rejection order can be entertained under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC. Since it is a merit order, it does not lie.
7. The appellate court wants to give interpretation to the word 'rejection' in a different manner as if the rejection can be made only before numbering the petition and not after that. This is not the proper approach.
8. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Koushik Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Ameena Begam & another (CDJ 2024 SC 002), now the position is clarified. Against the dismissal of the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, only appeal will lie and not the revision. This fixes the issue. Wrong interpretation given by the appellate court per se illegal. On that sole ground, the order passed by the appellate court.
9. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed. The orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate court to consider CMA No.2 of 2021 on its own merit by giving opportunity to both sides. The above said process will be completed within a period of two months. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
An order rejecting a plaint under CPC is tantamount to a decree, subject to appeal under Section 96.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not be maintainable if the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an app....
An order passed under Section 144 of CPC is a decree and therefore an appeal lies against it under Section 96 of CPC. A revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintai....
A plaintiff's right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute and must respect the rights acquired by the defendants under a decree.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.