Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 965 (MAD)

K. Thayarammal & Others v. S. Murali

2009-04-03

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2009
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. This Revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.520 of 2007 in G.O.P.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court at Pondicherry. 2. The said I.A.No.520 of 2007 was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte order passed in G.O.P.No.25 of 2004. The learned trial Judge after going through the averments in the affidavit to the petition and also the contentions raised in the counter filed by the respondent, had dismissed the petition with costs, which necessitated the petitioners in I.A.No.520 of 2006 to prefer this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that without any delay he had preferred I.A.No.520 of 2006 and the learned trial Judge without considering the reasoning stated in the affidavit to the petition in I.A.No.520 of 2006 had dismissed the same. The reasoning stated in the affidavit to I.A.No.520 of 2006 was that the petitioners herein / respondents in GOP.No.25 of 2005 were residing about 100 kms away from Pondicherry the place called Sathanancherry Village and there is no frequent bus to Pondicherry and they came late to the Court on 11.07.2006, on which date they were set exparte and an exparte order was passed in GOP.No.25 of 2004 only on the ground that apart from the persons who had sworn the affidavit to the petition in I.A.No.520 of 2006 there were other persons and there was no reasoning stated in the affidavit for their non-appearance. 3. Admittedly GOP.No.25 of 2004 was in the midst of trial and that the plaintiff was examined as P.W1 and the said GOP.No.25 of 2004 was posted for further evidence on 17. 2007. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioners to vent out their grievance in GOP.No.25 of 2004, but on payment of cost, which I fix as Rs.1000/-. 4. In fine, the Revision is allowed on condition the petitioners pay a cost of Rs.1000/-to the other side on or before 24.04.2009, failing which the Revision shall deem to have been dismissed. 4. In fine, the Revision is allowed on condition the petitioners pay a cost of Rs.1000/-to the other side on or before 24.04.2009, failing which the Revision shall deem to have been dismissed. On compliance of the said condition, the learned trial Judge is directed to restore GOP.No.25 of 2004 to his file and to proceed with the trial and after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within two months thereafter. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.