Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2982 (MAD)

R. C. Kumar v. B. Gunasundari

2010-07-21

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 09.10.2009 passed in RCA No.388 of 2008 by the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order dated 26.02.2008 passed in RCOP No.1879 of 2007 by the learned XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, this Civil Revision Petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The short point which falls for consideration before this Court in this revision is that the appellate authority, despite recording that the matter was not argued by the appellant before it, passed purportedly order on merits dismissing the RCA, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was wrong and he would canvass the point that as per law on seeing that the appellant did not argue the matter, he ought to have dismissed the appeal. This alone constitute the gist and kernel of the revision in this case. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that it is palpably clear that the tenant is bent upon protracting the proceedings and he did not make use of the opportunity to argue and hence no mercy could be shown towards him. The learned counsel for the landlord would implore and entreat that this Court being the revisional Court could straightaway hear the revision petitioner on merits and decide the matter here itself. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the revision petition is tenable for the reasons found set out in the aforesaid grounds of revision? 6. At this juncture, I would like to recollect and call up the following decision of the Honbe Apex Court reported in (2009)2 SCC 703 (Asit Kumar Kar vs. State of West Bengal and others). An excerpt from it would run thus: "4. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence". 7. A mere reading of the above judgment would show that in case of non appearance of the petitioner/appellant, the only course open for the appellate authority is to dismiss the appeal and the order passed by him cannot be taken as one on merits. 7. A mere reading of the above judgment would show that in case of non appearance of the petitioner/appellant, the only course open for the appellate authority is to dismiss the appeal and the order passed by him cannot be taken as one on merits. However, such a legal dictum cannot be taken undue advantage by the appellants and drag on the proceedings. 8. The learned counsel for the landlord would submit that only two short points are involved, so to say relating to the ground value and the plinth area and the tenant was not willing to argue and because of that alone such a judgment emerged at the hands of the appellate authority. Be that as it may, it is pellucidly and palpably clear that the tenant did not make use of the opportunity given by the appellate authority and for that the respondent/landlord should not suffer. In the event of giving opportunity to argue the appeal within the time to be fixed by this Court, the landlord also should be compensated. Hence, in the result I am of the view that the order of the appellate authority has to be set aside and accordingly set aside subject to the condition that the tenant pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost on or before 31.07.2010, whereupon, the appellate authority shall do well to see that the RCA is disposed of by 31st August 2010. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.