JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order, dated 31/10/2023 made in IA No.1 of 2023 made in OS No.76 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari, Sivagangai.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 31/10/2023 made in IA No.1 of 2023 made in OS No.76 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari, Sivagangai.

2. The facts in brief:-

Suit in OS No.76 of 2020 was filed by the respondent herein namely R. Jason Srinivasan through his Power Agent namely R. Saroja seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for costs. The defendants appeared. Pending further process, IA No.1 of 2023 is taken out by the petitioners to set aside the ex-parte decree along with the application to condone the delay of 88 days in filing to set aside the petition on the following grounds:-

<

They are in possession of the property under dispute. The suit was posted for hearing, on 23/12/2022. Even prior to that date, the second petitioner was affected with illness. He was taken to the native place for treatment. So, he could not contact his Advocate immediately. After recovery, he contacted his Advocate. At that time, he was told that an ex-parte decree was passed, on 07/02/2023.

3. That was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff stating that no proper reason was assigned; even the ex-parte decree and judgment was known to the petitioners; Inspite of repeated adjournments, the petitioners did not appear.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the petition stating that no proper reason is assigned by the petitioners for their non appearance on various dates mentioned in the order. The plaintiff was examined in chief, on 20/12/2022. Only at that time, they remained ex-parte. So the reason assigned by the petitioners was found to be false.

5. Against which, this civil revision petition has been preferred.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Advocate, who took care of the trial process did not inform the petitioners about the correct date. Apart from that, he is also suffering from illness, that was the reason for the non-appearance.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that right from the beginning, the petitioners have shown indifferent attitude. They have not even care to appear before the trial court, even before the order of ex-parte. He has also narrated the dates and events as mentioned in the order. He would also rely upon several judgments passed by this court.

<

1. Leela Vs. V.R. Asha (2019 (1) CTC 649;

2. B. Rajendran Vs. D. Bakthavachalu (2022) 1 MLJ 287; and

3. Arumugam Vs. Senthilkumar and another (CRP(NDP) No.1425 of 2017, dated 20/07/2021).

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sindhu Deevi Vs. S.M.K. Peer Mohammed represented through his power Agent Peerpathu (CRP(NPD) No.256 of 2018, dated 30/08/2023), would submit that the judgment does not satisfy the requirement of law. He is entitled to set aside the decree and judgment.

10. But the judgment is not produced either by the petitioners or the respondent to make any observation and the legality of the judgment. So, I am not going into that aspect now.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even though, it is stated that the second petitioner reported to be dead, what was the reason for the other petitioners to appear before the trial court is not even explained by them. On that account, he would submit that ex-parte decree should not be set aside in a mechanical manner or casual manner. But it must be guided some principles of law.

12. Now the main suit is for permanent injunction. The plaintiff is also sworn in chief affidavit. Since the right of the pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document