O R D E R

This revision is against an order of the Trial Court, returning a petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., as not maintainable, since the judgment in the suit was pronounced, invoking Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Considering the fact that the order challenged is one, returning an application without numbering, notice to the respondents is deemed unnecessary.

2.The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in OS.No.1 of 2011, seeking declaration of their title of the suit properties, recovery of possession, injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties, declaration that the 1st defendant is not the grand son (son's son) of Karuppayammal, for measuring the suit properties and to fix the boundaries, for refund of the compensation that has been received by the 1st defendant and for other reliefs.

3.The defendants filed a written statement. PW1 was examined in chief. The defendants did not choose to cross-examine. The learned Trial Judge, decreed the suit on 23.12.2016. While decreeing the suit, the learned Trial Judge made a statement that the suit is decreed under Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Soon thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner, seeking to set aside the decree treating it as an exparte decree on 20.01.2017. The said application was returned with an endorsement that it is not maintainable, since the judgment was passed under Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Though the same was attempted to be represented, the learned Additional District Judge, by endorsement dated 10.12.2019 returned it again, stating that previous return has not been complied with. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal against a decree with an petition for condonation of delay, which came to be dismissed by this Court.

4.After dismissal of the said petition seeking condonation of dealy, the petitioner has come up with this revision, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the return endorsement made by the learned Additional District Judge and for a direction to the Additional District Judge to number the application. Since I find that the action of the learned Additional District Judge in passing a decree under Order 10 Rule 4 itself is incorrect and it amounts to abuse of the process of Court, I entertain this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.The power to grant a decree under Order 10 Rule 4 is circumscribed by Order 10 Rule 2 and Sub-rule 1 of Rule 4 of Order 10 of C.P.C. Order 10 Rule 2 of C.P.C., enables the Court to put questions to the party or the pleader or a person accompanying the pleader at the first hearing of the case. Order 10 Rule 3 requires the Court to reduce the substance of such examination in writing and declares that it shall form part of the record in the suit. Order 10 Rule 4 sets out of consequence of refusal or inability of the pleader to answer the questions. Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C., reads as follows:-

“4.Consequence of refusal or inability of pleader to answer.- (1)Where the pleader of any party who appears by a pleader or any such person accompanying a pleader as is referred to in Rule 2, refuses or is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit which the Court is of opinion that the party whom he represents ought to answer, and is likely to be able to answer if interrogated in person, the Court may postpone the hearing of the suit to a day not later than seven days from the date of first hearing and direct that such party shall appear in person on such day.”

(2) If such party fails without lawful excuse to appear in person on the day so appointed, the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.”

6. A very reading of the provision would show that the power to pronounce judgment conferred on the Court under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 10 cannot be invoked unless the requirements of Sub-rule 1 of Ru