Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 448 (MAD)

J. P. Nagarajan v. P. K. Pownraj

2014-02-24

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Rathina Asohan, counsel on record for the petitioner and by Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, counsel on record for the respondent are heard. The copy of the impugned order, grounds of revision and the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 2. The Respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.198/2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the superstructure put up by the revision petitioner herein/defendant. The suit was contested by the revision petitioner by filing a written statement. Meanwhile, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.SR.No.2/2014 to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 16.12.2013. When the said application was filed in the court below, the learned Principal District Munsif, Dharmapuri returned the said application stating that no ex-parte order was passed against the revision petitioner herein/defendant and a judgment was delivered on merits and asked a question as to how the said petition was maintainable. As against the same, the present revision has been filed invoking the power of Superintendence of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the subordinate courts. 3. Even after the re-presentation of the said petition with the endorsement that the judgment was only an ex-parte judgment and the decree drawn was only an ex-parte decree capable of being set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in the light of the precedent, the application was not taken on file and on the other hand, it was adjourned periodically and at last, it was adjourned without being numbered to 20.02.2014 with a direction to check and call, while an execution petition filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff was taken on file and is pending. The present revision came to be filed for a direction to the court below to take up the application on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 4. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The present revision came to be filed for a direction to the court below to take up the application on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 4. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, the learned senior counsel arguing for the counsel for the respondent, would submit that instead of prolonging the controversy, the civil revision petition may be allowed and a direction may be issued to the trial court to take up the application in I.A.SR.No.2/2014 on file, number the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a time to be fixed by this court. 5. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel arguing for the counsel on record for the petitioner would submit that a direction can be issued without fixing a specific date, because of the complications involved in this case, wherein an application filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed, against which a revision was filed and the revision came to be allowed ex-parte directing disposal of the suit within the time fixed by the court and a miscellaneous petition filed by the revision petitioner herein is pending on the file of this court. Learned senior counsel also pointed out the fact that, pursuant to the disposal of the other civil revision petition mentioned supra, the respondent herein, who filed an application for transfer of the above suit to the Sub Court, Dharmapuri to be tried along with the connected suit filed by the revision petitioner against the vendor of the respondent herein withdraw the same and that the revision petitioner, under such circumstances would be forced to seek transfer of the suit concerned in this civil revision petition to the sub court, Dharmapuri in the event of their failure to get an order of stay under Section 10 of the CPC. 6. Considering the above said submissions, this court is of the considered view that the civil revision petition has to be allowed and a direction is to be issued to the trial court to number the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in I.A.SR.No.2/1014, hear and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 6. Considering the above said submissions, this court is of the considered view that the civil revision petition has to be allowed and a direction is to be issued to the trial court to number the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in I.A.SR.No.2/1014, hear and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri is directed to number the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in I.A.SR.No.2/1014 and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Cosequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.