THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J.
J.Premakumari Wife of D. Melvin Prabha - Petitioner
Versus
K.Thirumoorthy Son of Late G. Kathirvelu - Respondent
CRP Nos.779 and 780 of 2023 and CMP no.5975 OF 2023 IN CRP No.779 of 2023
Decided On : 13-11-2024
ORDER :
R.Sakthivel, J.
PRAYER IN CRP NO.779 OF 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair Order and decretal Order dated March 5, 2021 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.420 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
PRAYER IN CRP NO.780 OF 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair Order and decretal Order dated August 24, 2022 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.420 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decretal Orders passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 dated March 5, 2021 and I.A.No.5 of 2021 dated August 24, 2022, in O.S.No.420 of 2019 on the file of ‘III Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee' ['Trial Court' for short].
2. In both these Civil Revision Petitions, the parties are one and the same. In both, the revision petitioner is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.420 of 2019 on the file of Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
Brief Facts
3. Brief facts are that the plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.420 of 2019 for specific performance of the Sale Agreement dated February 21, 2013. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 2 of 2019 seeking interim order against the defendant not to alienate or encumber the Suit Property. The said Suit and the said Interlocutory Application were posted on December 19, 2019 and summon and notice were duly served respectively for the said hearing date. Since the defendant failed to appear, the defendant was called absent and ex-parte on that day viz., December 19, 2019 in both.
4. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 in the main Suit as well I.A.No.4 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2019, both under Order IX Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC' for short], praying to set aside the ex-parte Orders passed in the main Suit and in the said Interlocutory Application respectively. Both the afore-said Interlocutory Applications were heard and were allowed, by a common Order on March 17, 2020, on the condition that the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/-in each Interlocutory Application, to the plaintiff on or before April 3, 2020, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. The said common Order was not complied with and hence, the said Interlocutory Applications were dismissed on March 5, 2021.
5. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2021, praying to restore Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2020 respectively under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. A common Order was passed on August 18, 2022 in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2021 allowing the said Interlocutory Applications on payment of Rs.500/- in each Interlocutory Application, to the plaintiff, on or before August 23, 2022. Since the same was not complied with, they were dismissed on August 24, 2022.
6. Now the defendant is before this Court through the C.R.P.Nos.779 and 780 of 2023, praying to set aside the fair and decretal Orders passed in the said I.A.No.3 of 2020 and I.A.No.5 of 2021 respectively.
Arguments
7. Mr.G.Madhan Raj, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner / defendant submits that the Counsel for the defendant before the Trial Court, was little bit late to the Trial Court on the date of hearing of the main Suit viz., December 19, 2019 and therefore, he could not file Vakkalat. Hence, the defendant was called absent and set ex-parte. He would further submit that, the defendant could not comply with the Order dated March 17, 2020 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 due to the Covid-19 situation and therefore, the I.A.No.3 of 2020 was dismissed on March 5, 2021. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.5 of 2020 to restore the I.A.No.3 of 2020. The said petition was ordered on paym
In re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117
Extraordinary circumstances due to Covid-19 warrant a compassionate approach, allowing the setting aside of ex-parte orders in civil proceedings.
Settlement in underlying suit renders revision petition moot, warranting closure.
Timely applications in civil proceedings are crucial, but delays can be excused if justified, with the court retaining discretion to impose conditions.
A revision petition is not maintainable when an appeal is the appropriate legal remedy as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code.
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.