Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2408 (MAD)

Babulal Surana v. Varalakshmi

2013-07-11

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.18003 of 2012 in O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 4 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.2181 of 1996 on 23.07.2007 was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The court below rejected the said application by taking note of the fact that the petitioners had already approached the very same court with the very same relief on an earlier occasion by filing I.A.No.11 of 2007 and when the same was dismissed for default, they have filed an application to restore the said I.A. and that application was also rejected against which the petitioners approached this Court by filing C.R.P.Nos.667 and 669 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 25.04.2011. 4. I have perused the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.667 and 669 of 2010 dated 25.04.2011. The said civil revision petitions were filed challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.16 and 15 of 2009 respectively in I.A.No.11 of 2007 in O.S.No.2189 of 1996. The said application in I.A.No.11/2007 was filed by the petitioners on 24.03.2007 to set aside the exparte decree passed on 22.03.2007. The said application came to be dismissed for default and only to restore the same, the other two applications were filed in I.A.Nos.16 and 15 of 2009 respectively. When those applications were rejected, the petitioners have come by way of the above said civil revision petitions before this Court. After considering various aspects of the matter, the learned Judge dismissed both the civil revision petitions by holding that when the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was dismissed, the petitioners filed a petition to restore the same with an application to condone the delay of 711 days which shows the lethargic attitude of the petitioners and there was no bonafide reason available to condone such delay. 5. In view of the said order passed in the civil revision petitions, the order passed in the application filed in I.A.No.11 of 2007 in dismissing the same has become final and conclusive. 5. In view of the said order passed in the civil revision petitions, the order passed in the application filed in I.A.No.11 of 2007 in dismissing the same has become final and conclusive. W hen that being the position, the petitioners cannot once again file an application to set aside the decree even on a different ground. In my considered view, a relief sought for, once rejected, cannot be reagitated once again by contending that the application is maintainable on different ground. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they should have challenged the order made in C.R.P.Nos.667 and 669 of 2010 dated 25.04.2011. As it is not stated before this Court that any appeal is filed against the said order, I find that the present application filed before the court below in I.A.No.18003 of 2012 is not maintainable and barred by principles of res judicata. Accordingly, the court below is right in dismissing the application with which I find no irregularity or infirmity. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.