Judgment : Inveighing the order dated 2. 2008 passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.S. No. 4498 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focuseed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Tersely and briefly, pithily and precisely, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The first respondent N. Bava herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 4498 of 2008 as against the Corporation of Chennai and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, the respondents 2 and 3 herein seeking the following reliefs: -to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming through or under them from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and more particularly from interfering with his right to carry on business in the said property and for costs. (extracted as such) The revision petitioner herein is not a party to those proceedings. The trial Court passed the ex parte judgment and decree and the entire judgment is extracted here under for ready reference: “Suit for permanent injunction and for costs. Proved, Satisfied that the suit be and the same stands decreed as prayed for without cost.” On 11. 2008, an application was filed by the revision petitioner seeking the following relief: - to implead the petitioner as party 3 defendant in the suit O.S. No. 4498 of 2008. Whereupon the Court returned it with the following endorsement. “The suit got disposed as early as on 9. 2008 itself. How this petition by the petitioner/3rd party is entertained. Hence returned.” Being aggrieved by dissatisfied with the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the lower Court, this revision has been focused on various grounds and among them, the main contention of the revision petitioner is that the judgment of the lower Court is not a speaking one and without application of mind, the said judgment was passed and the Court also did not take into consideration that necessary parties were not added in the suit. 4. Thelearned counsel for the revision petitioner would put forth and set forth his argument, the quintessence of the same would run thus: The revision petitioner herein happened to be the owner of the big building including the premises referred to in the suit. 4. Thelearned counsel for the revision petitioner would put forth and set forth his argument, the quintessence of the same would run thus: The revision petitioner herein happened to be the owner of the big building including the premises referred to in the suit. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff who is R1 herein has been in occupation of a small portion of the premises belonging to the revision petitioner. According to him, it is an unauthorized occupation, which the plaintiff claims to have obtained as a leasee from his alleged lessor one Joseph Cleetus son of Cleetus Vincent. Janpriya Builder is a partnership of it. Cleetus Vincent and his wife, happened to be the partners and whereas Cleetus Vincent’s son namely Joseph cleetus is not a partner and he is not the owner of the said premises also; in such a case, the first respondent herein could not have obtained any valid lease or licence from him. Even though, the allegations in the plaint ace focuseed as against the petitioner, Janpriya Builders yet the respondent No. 1, herein, viz., plaintiff did not choose to implead Janpriya Builders as one of the parties to the suit. Apparently, Janpriya Builders/the revision petitioner herein might be appearing to be a 3 party to the suit, but, in fact, the said suit was engineered only for the purpose of getting some undue advantage as against Janpriya Builders and the plaintiff, also got his hidden intention accomplished by getting such an ex parte judgment which is a non speaking judgment, having no legs to stand. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the revision petition. 5. Whereas by way of torpedoing and pulverising the argument as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent would set forth and put forth his argument, the pith and marrow, the warp and woof of them would run thus: .(i) If at all, the defendants in the suit were aggrieved by the ex parte judgment and decree of the trial Court, they should have filed an appeal, but they have not chosen to do so. On the other hand, the revision petitioner herein who is obviously and axiomatically a third party to the proceedings filed this application purely for the purpose of getting his hidden motive to evict the plaintiff by hook or by crook accomplished and that too, with the help of the Corporation authorities. If at all, the 3rd party, namely, the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the said ex parte judgment, then with the leave of the Court, he could file an appeal, whereas he is having no right to file revision in the manner, in which it has been filed at present. .(ii) The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of a small portion in the bigger, premises ever since 1993, by virtue of the lease deed, which emerged between the plaintiff and that of Joseph Cleetus S/o Cleetus Vincent. It is too late in the day on the pact of the revision petitioner to come forward and say by allegedly estranging themselves from Joseph Cleetus. The Court has to see the reality. (iii) The scope of the suite is such that the revision petitioner is not in any way aggrieved by the said judgment and decree is there as no direction as against the revision petitioner, who is not in any way could claim that they are aggrieved by it. Normally ex parte decrees are passed by the lower Court only in the same manner as it has been passed in this matter. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition in limini. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the revision petitioner being a third party is having any locus standi to file this revision and whether the judgment and decree of the lower Court could be termed as legal in the eye of law? 7. Trite the proposition of law I that even, a third party can invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court either under Section 115 of CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this Court in Varada Reddiar and Another v. Jayachandran and Others (1996) 1 MLJ 629 : 1996 (2) CTC 611 and certain excerpts from the said decision would run thus at p.631 of MLJ: “8. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this Court in Varada Reddiar and Another v. Jayachandran and Others (1996) 1 MLJ 629 : 1996 (2) CTC 611 and certain excerpts from the said decision would run thus at p.631 of MLJ: “8. Even though the defendant was ex parte in the suit, there was a duty on the part of the Court below to apply its mind before granting the decree. By virtue of the decree, we find that some right has been given to the plaintiffs in the suit which even they did not ask for. Once a decree is obtained, the respondents 1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs) have exploited the same to their benefit. 9. In this connection, it is better to follow a decision of the Court in Annapoornni v. Janaki (1991) 1 LW 141. When the revision petition camp up for hearing, SRINIVASAN, J. treated it as suo motu revision petition, by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. That was a case where a daughter-in-law filed a suit against the mother-in-law, claiming to be a legal heir of her husband. She claimed that she is the absolute owner of the property, though the mother also had an equal share as an heir to her son. The mother did not contest the matter and ultimately a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Execution proceedings were taken. It was at that time, a question camp up for consideration whether the decree is legally valid. The learned Judge said thus: When this Court finds that a decree suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record owing to non-application of mind of the Court to the relevant principles of law, this Court cannot keep silent keep silent and allow the decree to be in force, particularly, when it causes grave injustice. Share can be no doubt whatever that under the Hindu Succession Act, certain persons are designated as class I heirs and all of them are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Hindu. There is no earthly reason for depriving the mother of the deceased of her legitimate share in the estate which in this case happens to be a moiety. There is no earthly reason for depriving the mother of the deceased of her legitimate share in the estate which in this case happens to be a moiety. This is a typical case of miscarriage of justice which should be rectified the moment it comes to the notice of the Court. It is only for that reason, I am exercising my powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case on hand is also similar. A decree which is beyond the scope of the suit has been granted, thereby depriving certain temples of their properties. A wrongful gain has been obtained by the plaintiffs, respondents 1 and 2 herein. The decree passed by the Court below has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this is a fit case where I have to exercise my powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According by exercising my powers under Section 115 C.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution, I modify the decree passed by the Court below as follows: The decree of the Court below will be read as if injunction was there restraining the defendant (third respondent herein) for conducting auction on 27. 1991 or any other date till 30.6.1992 and the defendant was entitled to auction or lease out the properties after the said period.” .8. Simply because a third party could file revision, the Court is not bound to entertain revision unless the Court is made to get satisfied that the revision petitioner being a third party is having something to do with the suit relating to which such ex parte judgment and emerged. 9. She learned counsel for the revision petitioner would convincingly draw the attention of this Court to the various averments in the plaint at para Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and develop his argument to the effect that having chosen to accuse the revision petitioner herein in elaborate terms in the plaint, the plaintiff conveniently did choose not to implead them as a party. No doubt, apparently the nature of the reliefs sought in the suit would demonstrate and display that they were not focussed as against the revision petitioner herein. In such a case, it is not known as to why such elaborate accusations should have been made as against the revision petitioner in the concerned plaint. 10. No doubt, apparently the nature of the reliefs sought in the suit would demonstrate and display that they were not focussed as against the revision petitioner herein. In such a case, it is not known as to why such elaborate accusations should have been made as against the revision petitioner in the concerned plaint. 10. Be that as it may, I do not even for a moment hold that the revision petitioner should necessarily be added as a party. At the appropriate stage, if the revision petitioner do choose to revive their application for impleadment, the same should be considered by the Court concerned untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this revision. 11. What I would like to point out is that for the purpose of filing this revision petition, I could see that there is some justification on the part of the petitioner and to that much extent, I would like to hold in this revision. 12. A mere poring over and perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would amply make the point clear that such a judgment cannot be allowed to stand at all, as this Court in catena of decisions have already pointed out that even if the judgment is an ex parte one, it should be on merits. Even though, an ex parte judgment has to be passed, there should be some material in the judgment to show and convey that the Judge applied his mind on the merits of the case. Simply because, the defendant remained ex parte, the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree from the Court as a matter of right. The Court even can dismiss such suits after considering the merits of the matter. But in this case, the above extract from the judgment of the lower Court would clearly display and demonstrate that there was no application of mind on the part of the lower Court Judge concerned and he simply decreed the suit and that too quite as against the High Court’s Circular in R.O.C. No. 195/76.Con.B2 dated 211. 1977. 13. Both sides argued elaborately regarding the merits of the matter. But, I am not inclined to decide on that and those are not germane also for the disposal of this revision petition. 1977. 13. Both sides argued elaborately regarding the merits of the matter. But, I am not inclined to decide on that and those are not germane also for the disposal of this revision petition. This Court being a Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the lower Court is having he power to set aside the judgment of a lower Court once it comes across illegalities in rendering the judgment. As such, I am of the view that the said ex parte judgment and decree should be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for being dealt with as per law. .14. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm and without being tautologous, I would like to clarify the doubt of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/R1 herein that by this. I do not hold that the petitioner should necessarily be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit and it is for the lower Court to decide the matter on merits at the appropriate stage if any appropriate application is found filed by the petitioner herein. 15. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. She plaintiff shall appear before the Court below on 17. 2010. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitioner is closed.