Advocates:
['M/S T P MANOHARAN', '', 'K P JOTHEESWARAN', 'M/S R SANKAR', '', 'B GANDHI', 'R- CEDRIC ARMAND RAGOURAMIN S/O SUBRAYAN', 'R- JACQUELINE INAYATOULLA W/O INAYATOULLA CHANBACHA', 'R- INAYATOULLA CHANBACHA S/O C INAYATOULLA']

CRP (PD) No.4741 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

CRP (PD) No.4741 of 2014

and

MP.No.1 of 2014

G.Vidhya,

W/o.R.Vijayaraman

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Belfort Sagayamarie Adeline,

D/o.Belford Aroquiasamy

2.Cedric Armand Ragouramin,

S/o.Subrayan

3.Jacqueline Inayatoulla,

W/o.Inayatoulla Chanbacha

4.Inayatoulla Chanbacha,

S/o.C.Inayatoulla

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, seeking to prefer this memorandum of grounds of Civil Revision

Petition against the Order and Decreetal order dated 24.11.2014 made in

I.A.No.662 of 2014 in O.S.No.6 of 2009, on the file of the learned III

Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (PD) No.4741 of 2014

For Petitioner

: Mr.T.P.Manoharan

For R1

: Mr.B.Gandhi

For R2 to R4

: No appearance

*****

O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner / 4^th

defendant seeking to set aside the order dated 24.11.2014 in I.A. No. 662 of

2014 in O.S. No. 6 of 2009 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge,

Puducherry dismissing the petition to set aside the exparte order dated

03.11.2014.

2.The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 6 of

2009 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry against the

defendants. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff seeking for preliminary

decree of partition and final decree of demarcation, allotment and delivery of

separate possession of his half share in the suit property and for costs. The

revision petitioner / 4^th defendant is the purchaser of the suit property from the

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (PD) No.4741 of 2014

1^st to 3^rd defendants and she is the contesting defendant. The suit was posted on

03.11.2014 for filing of written statement. Since the counsel for the 4^th

defendant had not appeared and filed written statement on 03.11.2014, the 4^th

defendant was set exparte. Aggrieved by the same, she had filed I.A. No. 662

of 2014 stating that on 03.11.2014, there was heavy rain in Pondicherry and

thereby, her counsel was unable to reach the Trial Court. Since, the counsel did

not appear before the Trial Court and file the written statement, the Court had

set her exparte. It was further stated that the non-filing of the written statement

was neither willful nor wanton and it was not done deliberately with an

intention to protract the trial and that the written statement had been filed

immediately within two days along with an application in I.A. No. 662 of 2014

under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the

exparte order dated 03.11.2014 and permission was also sought to contest the

suit on merits.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff before the Trial Court

has filed a counter on behalf of the plaintiff. In the counter, it had been stated

that I.A. No. 662 of 2014 is the second application filed to set aside the exparte

order. It had been further stated that the 4^th defendant was earlier set exparte on

24.06.2009 and thereafter, the trial was conducted and when the suit was

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (PD) No.4741 of 2014

posted for judgment on 24.01.2013, the 4^th defendant had filed I.A. No. 17 of

2013 after three years to set aside that exparte order and the Court had set

aside that exparte order. It was further averred that the 4^th defendant had not

shown sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte order dated 03.11.2014.

Further, it had been averred that the written statement was not filed in time and

it was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and

thereby, sought to dismiss the petition seeking to set aside the exparte order.

The Trial Co