Under Article 227, High Court can interfere where a trial court dismisses a suit for default without issuing notice to parties after transfer, as such failure violates principles of natural justice and constitutes a perverse exercise of discretion.

COMMON ORDER

The plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.577 of 2024 and O.S.No.295 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, are the revision petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of the above mentioned suits for default.

2.I have heard Mr.P.Sunil for Mr.K.P.Shanthosh, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revision petitions and Ms.Muthu Yazhini, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate for the 3^rd respondent in CRP.No.617 of 2025; and Mr.V.Sundar th Raman, learned counsel for the 6 respondent in CRP. No.618 of 2025.

3.Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the suits were originally filed before the Alandur Court and on account of a change in territorial jurisdiction, the suits were transferred to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, where they were re-numbered. Tthe grievance of the petitioners is that upon such transfer and re-numbering, no notice was served on the petitioners or their counsel and therefore, unaware of the new suit number as well as the hearing date, the petitioners did not appear and the suits came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

4.Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, taking me through the e-court site pertaining to the present suits, would submit that even after transfer of the suits, the transferee Court has only ordered notice to both parties, upto 25.10.2024 on which date, the suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Similarly, in other suit also, from 18.03.2024, the date of transfer, the transferee Court has only directed Court notice to both parties and on 08.11.2024, finding that there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit has been dismissed for non prosecution.

5.Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court has repeatedly held that when there is transfer of a suit or proceedings from one Court to another Court, then the parties are entitled to receive notice. He would rely on the decision of this Court in Ellapuram Panchayat Union, Periapalayam Vs. Shri Bhavaniammal Devasthanam , reported in 1981 (94) LW 256, where this Court held that whenever there is transfer of a case from one Court to the other, a notice to that effect should be given to the parties informing them about the transfer, though no provision to such effect was found either under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Civil Rules of Practice. This decision was followed by an other decision of this Court in Dayanandhini Vs. K.Mala , reported in CMA.No.2460 of 2015 dated 14.02.2019, where again, this Court held that notice was necessary, consequent to transfer of proceedings and also directed the Registry to circulate the judgment of this Court in Ellapuram’s case (referred herein supra) to all Civil Courts, with instructions to issue notice to the parties on transfer of suits, on account of constitution of new Courts or bifurcation of jurisdiction or transfer of cases due to the change in pecuniary jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction or even in the case of a transfer due to workload.

6.Recently, this Court, in Rajaram (Died and others Vs. Kanniga Parameswari and others, in CRP(NPD).No.3822 of 2018 dated 20.10.2023, held that sitting in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot close its eyes to an illegal order, even though subsequently, based on such illegal order, a final decree was passed and even the EP was also terminated.

7.In Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and another , reported in AIR (Supreme Court) 1631, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no act of Court should harm a litigant and if at all, any person is prejudiced by mistake of the Court, then he should be restored to the position, he would have occupied but for that mistake. The learned counsel would therefore pray for the revisions being allowed.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents,