The court clarified that ex parte judgments must comply with procedural norms and cannot ignore the rights of all involved parties, particularly when an appellate remedy is available.

ORDER :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, in O.S.No.70 of 1996, dated 08.09.1997.

2. Heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned Counsel representing Mr.K.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

3. One Vellaisami Muthuraja, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.70 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, which was originally filed before the Vacation Civil Judge, Trichy, in O.S.No.895 of 1995 against the official respondents for declaration of title. In the said suit, an ex parte decree was passed on 08.09.1997. Challenging the said order, dated 08.09.1997, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lands in O.S.No.13/2, New S.No.11/2, S.Kannanoor Village West, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchi District measuring 2.60 acres originally stand in the name of 16 persons including the Revision Petitioner. However, one Vellaisami Muthuraja, husband of the fourth respondent, had filed a suit in O.S.No.70 of 1996 before the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, as against the official respondents, as if the suit property belonged to one Nagamuthu Muthiriar. He further submitted that in the said suit, the Tahsildar, has filed a written statement to the effect that patta stands in the name of 16 persons and that neither the plaintiff nor the said Nagamuthu Muthiriar had any right over the said lands. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, as the official respondents remained ex parte, an ex parte judgment was passed on 08.09.1997 without even issuing notice to the aforesaid 16 persons. The learned Counsel further submitted that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the Samayapuram Mariamman Temple, in which the petitioner and other 15 persons are Patham Thangi and they are entitled to enjoy the suit schedule property as service inamdhars. He further submitted that in the year 1986, the Settlement Register was corrected and the name of one Nagamuthu was inserted and the patta was also granted in the name of Nagamuthu. Later, the said patta was also cancelled.

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that suppressing all these facts, the present suit has been filed. He also submitted that though the petitioner is a third party, he is one of the beneficiaries by virtue of the details, which was furnished by the respondents 1 to 3/defendants in the written statement. He also submitted that none of the above 16 persons were made as parties in the suit and without impleading those persons, an ex parte order was passed.

6.It is his further contention that on a plain reading, the order is a cryptic in nature without explaining the contents of the plaint and the documents marked and the trial Court has only passed a two line order in O.S.No.70 of 1996, dated 08.09.1997, which is extracted hereunder:

"P.W.1 is examined. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A11 marked. claim proved. Suit is decreed as prayed. No costs."

7.He also lamented that in the absence of non compliance of Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC, the said judgment cannot stands on its legs. He further contended that in collusion with the official respondents, an ex parte order was passed, which is per se illegal and sought interference of this Court.

8.Per contra, Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would contend that though a written stateme