Advocates:
['M/S G MURUGGAN', '', 'R Saravanan', 'ADDL TYPED SET FILED USR', 'DATES & EVENTS FILED USR', 'M/S J ALAGURAAM JOTHI', '', 'M KANAGASABAI']

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.756 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 09.08.2021

Pronounced on : 25.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.756 of 2020

and

C.M.P(MD)No.5063 of 2020

The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment

Corporation Limited represented by its

Branch Manager,

K.R.C.Building,

33, Promenade Road, Cantonment,

Tiruchy.

: Petitioner/Respondent/

Respondent/Defendant

Vs.

Seetha Nithyanandam

represented by her Power agent Gnanam.

: Respondent/Appellant/

Petitioner/ Plaintiff

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the Order and Decree dated

13.12.2019, passed in C.M.A No.5 of 2015 on the file of Principal

Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchy by reversing the Order and Decree

dated 13.02.2015, passed in I.A.No.1199 of 2014 in O.S.No.1269 of

2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchy.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Saravanan

For Respondent

: Mr.M.Kanaga Sabai

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order

passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the

Ist Additional Sub-ordinate Court Tiruchirapalli, reversing the

fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1199 of 2014, in

O.S.No.1269 of 2004, dated 13.02.2015, on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, in dismissing the

petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC.

2.The revision petitioner is the respondent/defendant. The

respondent, who is the appellant/plaintiff, has laid a suit in

O.S.No.1269 of 2004, against the revision petitioner claiming the

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.756 of 2020

relief of declaration that there is no liability due by the

plaintiff or her predecessors–in–title to the defendant on any

account and for conseqential permanent injunction restraining the

defendant and his men from interfering with the possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in any

manner, whatsoever, either by taking possession or otherwise.

3.The respondent/defendant has filed a written statement and

was contesting the suit.

4.When the suit was posted for trial, the plaintiff has not

chosen to proceed with the trial and as she was called absent and

as there was no representation for her, the suit was ordered to be

dismissed for default, vide Judgment and Decree, dated 13.06.2012.

The plaintiff has thereafter, filed a petition in I.A.No.1199 of

2014, under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, to restore the suit which was

dismissed for default on 13.06.2012.

5.The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed an

order, dated 13.02.2015, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved

by the said order of dismissal, the plaintiff has preferred an

appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 and the learned Additional Sub-Judge,

upon considering the materials produced and on hearing the

arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order, dated

13.12.2019, allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the fair

and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1199 of 2014, dated

13.02.2015 and consequently allowed the petition filed under Order

9 Rule 9 CPC. Challenging the said order, the defendant has come

forward with the present revision petition.

6.The plaintiff has filed the above suit through her power

agent and she is prosecuting the proceedings including the present

revision through the same power agent. It is evident from the

records that the power agent of the plaintiff has filed the

affidavit in respect of the petition in I.A.No.1199 of 2004, filed

under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and whereunder, she has stated that when

the suit has been posted in the list for trial on 13.06.2012, she

underwent a major heart surgery at Chennai and the Doctors who

treated her asked her to take complete rest for six months, that

she was advised not