Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2404 (MAD)

K. Sundararaj v. K. Vadivel Muruganathan

2012-06-12

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Registry, Sub-Court, Udumalpet, in I.A.CFR No.6529 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2008, this civil revision petition has been preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, at the entertaining stage itself, would run thus: The revision petitioner herein/the original defendant No.8 in the suit O.S.No.19 of 2008, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.to get the ex-parte decree set aside, which was returned with the following endorsements: Rtd: 1) How this petition is maintainable since the above suit was disposed as AFT on 7.9.09. 2) otherwise notice to be given. Sd/- 9.1.2010 Reted: Corrections are to be attested. Time one month. Sd/- 31.3. Returned: 18.10.2010 1) Written statement of D8 not filed in suit. Hence U/er.R.B. ....petition to be filed along with written statement. 2) corrections to be attested. .....time one month. Sd/18.10. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such returns, this civil revision has been focussed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for issuing suitable direction to the trial Court to entertain the said application. 6. The perusal of the returns would show that the trial Court was justified in making such returns, because the petitioner/D8 did not file written statement, before ex-parte decree was passed. Hence, while filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., the revision petitioner/D8 should have filed a separate application for getting the delay condoned in filing the written statement also. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner shall represent the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.along with the application to get the delay condoned in filing the written statement, enclosing the written statement, to the lower Court, whereupon the lower Court shall see that it is processed as per law and it is the duty of the trial Court to refer to the original case bundle, even though the bundle might have been sent to the appellate Court for the appeal purpose. 8. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.